At what date was the Axis destined to lose WW2 outside of one of their Wunderwaffens miraculously materializing

These threads always result in people being mad and leaving to start yet another thread asking the same questions.

Probably when Adolf put all of his buddies in positions of power that they didn't need to be in

Feldmarschall von Manstein says that they could have at least held the Russians to a stale mate up until early-mid 1944, provided that Hitler stop interfering with the war. That way the Germans would be able to properly manage it and would not waste so many resources and men doing stupid things.

Jan 30, 1933.

...

Day 1.

It was. Hitler was a corporal in control of the entire army of a country.

September 1, 1939. Axis was never going to win. They didn't even work together that much. Germany trained Chinese troops to fight the Japanese, even.

I'm no lover of Hitler, but there were plenty of times that he overruled his generals to great success, and times when he listened to them, and shit failed. Of course, since they survived and he can't defend himself, they blamed it on him. German generals would blame it on the roads, weather, supplies, and other things, rather than reality, that the allies out-produced and out-maneuvered them when it counted. Germany was destined to lose from the moment they bogged down on the way to Moscow, and even if they had taken Moscow, Stalin had moved shit east to continue the war. It wouldn't have ended there. USSR saw this as a war of annihilation. They were never going to stop fighting, and it was only a matter of time before they pushed back. Stalin and the Stavka knew that when it came to attrition, it was only a matter of time. All they had to do was withstand the initial assault, and then they would inevitably win. There are a lot of ifs and buts, though the fact remains that this is kind of how it had to happen. A lot of people give Hitler shit for invading the USSR, but he didn't really have a choice. He needed the oil. It's safe to say that the USSR wasn't planning an imminent invasion. They knew they were unprepared to fight the Germans, and it showed during the initial years of the war. Yes, war would eventually have happened, but who knows how much time that would have been. Operation Barbarossa caught them by surprise, and had it been successful, it might have only delayed the end of the war. Germany had insufficient manpower, oil, production, and allies. It just was never going to happen. Again, a negotiated peace might have worked if they somehow hit harder, but based on what we know of Stalin and the Stavka, I doubt this would have been the case. They weren't into the idea of surrendering.

On which level are you?

All of these points describe the decline of Germany's chances to win WW2. At what point it was truly over varies between each person and this is assmuning that Germany was at least able to win at some point during the war. It is difficult to truly estimate because we can only theorize about the surrender conditions. Maybe it would have taken less than a full scale invasion followed by occupation to make the UK surrender. The Soviets would have definetly not surrendered if Moscow, Stalingrad and Leningrad had fallen but I doubt you would need to push until Vladivostok to neutralize them.
I personally think that it was the order for Rommel and Guderian to not advance further. Taking out even more allied divisions (I don't know the exact number that got dunkirked) might have given the UK the impression that they could not win. Losing millions of your best men to an enemy who suffered not even 100000 deaths is incredibly demoralizing. Then again talking about this issue requires a lot of "what ifs?".

Bet you believe in the 6 million lampshades too

wew cuckchan

They got fucked by trade. Germany had fewer tanks than the other nations but focused them into their own seperate units. The intend of Blitzkrieg is to prevent casualties as it is about focusing your forces for breakthroughs and then enircling enemy units. Blitzkrieg was the best doctrine Germany could have come up with at this time. If their whole army was motorized then yes it would have consumed a lot of resources. All the other doctrines were actually worse when it comes to not lsing your men except for the US. England and France wanted attrional trench warfare. The Soviet Union developed Deep Battle because they had the manpower to do so.

There's no arguing that the Germans in the Late 30s did the best thing they could for warfare.
The problem was that it was always a short term solution.
In the end, they tried to take on too much.
I don't know how it could have been better but it was like a sprinter trying to run a marathon.
The gas was going to run out before the finish line if they didn't develop a better method and they never did.
c'est la vie

The day the invasion of Russia is agreed.

Still boggles my mind how there can still be retards who believe it was Russia that caused Germany's defeat.
If the kikes didn't get the USA involved, Germans would have absolutely 0 issues with the Soviets and the British. That's all there is to it. Nothing less, nothing more. The moment the United States with their absurd amount of resources, funds and weapons started helping the allies, it was pretty much over. It was America's lend lease that saved the soviets. It was America that made the Normandy landings possible. It was America that had complete aerial superiority all over France. It was America that could issue the army with weapons on par or even superior to anything the Germans could ever have. It was America that ultimately won in Italy and it was America that won the war.

What did the Soviets have? What did the British have? Absolutely nothing. Nothing that could ever even dream of winning the entirety of the German military. The soviet manpower and the British navy would get crushed if the Americans didn't get involved.
The commies were incompetent mongoloid monkeys, and the British were just the remnant of an old empire.

It's bad because it opens a two-front war, which is not recommended in any military.

Either push the Soviets back or be afraid of a second front only to one morning look out the window and see millions of angry commie manlets at your borders. Hitler didn't want to start a second front, but he had no choice. It was either attack or be attacked.

The Soviet is terrible in the offense, and without the US's support, their attack is going to kill more slavs than germans.

I have no idea why people believe that germans can beat the ruskies, but suddenly if the germans didn't attack the ruskies, the ruskies would have swarmed Europe.

>gee why would a sudden invasion of millions of men at the very borders of Europe have catastrophic consequences?
They would have all of Eastern Europe conquered within 1 week

Really? How?

Hundreds thousands of Soviet didn't get pass Finland, why do you think a millions of them can conquer Eastern Europe in a week?

Suddenly, the slavs are these terrible people who suck at everything, but if the germans didn't attack them, they are gonna be war gods and destroy everything in sight.

yeah but where are they now?

It wasn't Hitler who had a retarded idea of trying to intimidate illiterate soviets who never even seen "Staliningrad" or "Moscow", or even knew where they were instead of going for oilfields.

USSR was shit at the start of the war because of purges throughout the 1930s which gutted the army's command structure, plus industrial production wasn't exactly firing on all cylinders and the red army was mostly inexperienced, freshly conscripted peasants.
By the end and after the war ended things were significantly different, the red army eventually had a tank armada that could steam roll through to Portugal with nothing to really get in its way, nukes not withstanding.

But that's because they got lend's lease and USSR got live training battling with the germans.

In fact, the invasion of the german is what actually IMPROVING the Soviet army.

Which is again, a lie. If the Soviet could have done that, they would. Ruskies are terrible in offense, in all of history.

It was probably still winnable after winter 41 but for it it would have needed the Germans to realize they wouldn't be able to defeat the Soviet Army because they were supplied by the US and the commies were willing to throw every men, women and children living in the Soviet Union at the germans. Upon said realization they should have developed the same strategy as von Falkenhayn devised in WWI to win against the entente = kill as much of the enemy army until it breaks while saving as much of yours.

Instead, and that's nearly 100% Hitler fault, they kept pushing to capture cities that were largely only political objectives (the soviets had evacuated most of their heavy industries beyond the Urals, the Germans were aware of it because of all the empty factories they had previously found in Minsk, Kiev etc…) that even if they had managed to capture Leningrad/Moscow/Stalingrad it wouldn't have meant they won the war.

During the entire war, and even before Germany completely lacked strategic vision.

Slavs conquered both the Mongol and Turk empires, rekt them so hard that most of their former land and conquered peoples are under Slav control now, and use Cyrilic alphabet.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_Cyrillic_alphabet

It's funny how much praise gets heaped on Nazi Germany or Mongol combat ability, but its never mentioned they both got BTFO hard by one group of people. Slavs would have conquered all of Eurasia now if it wasn't for the black plague and little ice age putting a crimp in their style and preventing renaissance from occurring there, and then subsequent infighting and communism lasting for about 500 years.

Funny because the mongols literally break away due to the infighting, and slavs only use this fact to rebel and destroy the mongols.

The turks have only been strong by ganging up on the weak (the Byzantines empire), fucking Romania stopped their advance.

The oil that USSR provided to him via trade agreements just until the very day of Barbarossa?
Because it was a defensive war on USSR part, now compare it to how well USSR did in offensive wars, Polish-Bolshevik war, Winter War, Far East skrimishes etc…
If USSR was the one to attack they would get their shit pushed in because
a) Their best generals would still be gulaged/dead
b) Morale of soldiers would be low
c) Defenders (germans) would have no problem with supplies and logistic since they would operate on friendly territory
d) Foreign Legions of European volunteers would be even more numerous because it would be a defensive war
Not really, at least not early, from 1940 to winter 1941 german army was in peak condition, well supplied and with enough oil stockpiles to carry on the war for at least 2 years
What? Germans had more troops in Barbarossa than the defending USSR, how germans could have had manpower problems in 1941?
Well its the germans themselves that chosen those allies and failed to properly assume their strengths and weaknesses, not to mention total failure to even establish anything resembling a joint chain of command or decision center to coordinate the Axis forces.
Italian command often complained that germans didnt cooperated with them and consulted their plans.
Because in case of defensive war for USSR it was a war for survival, why would they surrender?

This honestly, the germans would've had a better chance by letting the soviets attack first

Man, convincing Hitler to stop attacking Russia would be the 2nd thing I did, 1st thing I did would be showing Bismarck the future and telling him to kill Karl Marx and Lenin ASAP.

The moment the Wehrmacht attacked the Soviets without having captured Malta, Cyprus and most importantly the Suez Canal in addition to having pushed the Brits into a peace agreement/armistice/surrender.
If they'd worked out those things and established stable oil supply routes from north Africa then getting attacked by or even attacking the Soviets first may have worked out favorably, as the Kriegsmarine would now be able to intercept burger lend-lease shipments much more efficiently though (((they))) might convince the Soviets to invade Manchuria at a much earlier date for patriotic reasons or some shit,which in turn might force the Wehrmacht to send troops&tanks to the far east so the Nips don't end up crashing their territorial holdings on the mainland with no survivors.

Attached: Really_activates_the_Aqua.jpg (1280x720, 266.94K)

You do know that Hitler had military experience from WWI, right? The problem is that he only made Corporal. That gives you a lot of experience with small unit leadership decisionmaking, but you don't know dick about larger national strategy.

Especially since defense was about the only thing their European allies were any good at. Of course, Churchill would never have surrendered and the US probably still would've gone full kike, rendering the whole thought experiment moot.

I can almost see waves, waves of T-34 being destroyed by well-supplied roving gangs of Panzer IV and Panther.

Beautiful, just beautiful.

Germany aimed for short term solutions because the Wehrmacht couldn't be made into an army for a long war. They didn't have the manpower or the resources for this so they went for Blitzkrieg. With this doctrine you are able to attack a bigger army than your own and win. There wasn't really anything else they could have gone for.

Or they could have conscripted the eastern europeans and created a mobile task force to patrol the area.

The border between Ukraine and Finland are very easy to defend with good infantries and tanks.

But Churchill operated in a democratic country, if there were enough casualties and/or bad economic situation at home caused by shortages and continuous raiding of shipments by german navy they would pressure the government to seek a way out of the war

I wonder how Churchill felt like when he immediately got the boot when the war is over.

Maybe damn, I should have kept this war going on forever.

I find your method of arguing strange.
You just took my two posts, rephrased them, and posted as if there were a contradiction between my statement and yours.
I have to admit, I'm a little baffled.

Attached: 1534302075820.jpg (641x530, 40.79K)

I seriously doubt that the war had any direct connection to his being ousted.
I believe is was a socioeconomic shift in the population's views.

Yeah, just a coincidence am I right?

Churchill was used like a cum rag and disposed as such. He must have felt regretted all his life.

FDR suddenly bites the bullet as well, must be karma.

Some say the japs cursed him.

FDR was a sick old man for years.
His death was as much of a surprise as sunset.
As to why Churchill was ousted, that'd be more of a Zig Forums discussion and I won't shit up my favorite board that way.

Yeah, all of these coincidences of how all the big players are dead/ousted.

The only one who stays in power and for a long time is Stalin.

He was killed by a jewish plot later on trough Doctors' plot

Which takes about 10 year since WW2, a bit too goddamn long tbh.

The earliest possible the Kriegsmarine would be able to go toe to toe with the RN would be 1948. Even then only in limited engagements.

There is a reason that in all its existence Britain has not been officially invaded.

Lend-lease accounted for 5% of GNP of the Soviet Union in 1942 granted, these materials were difficult, but not impossible for the Soviets to attain themselves. This portion of the lend-lease included; radios, high-octane fuel, trucks and various other bits required for a functional military.

The quality and quantity of lend-lease allowed the Soviets breathing room, without the necessary amount of trucks the Soviets would not be able to properly exploit any breakthroughs made, however, the main advances of the Soviet Union were from 43-45, a time when the Germans were mounting a defense without a clear strategy.

Considering the Germans were already being choked by the British blockade (read: British) supplies required by the Whermacht were in short supply, particularly oil. (Also compounded by the fact that DAK did not seize the Suez.) It is not disingenuous to say that given a few more years the Soviets would've starved the Germans even further.

The Soviet Union's economy was close to collapse, and it would've been closer if not for lend-lease but to say that lend-lease 'won' the war is untrue.

Attached: 4.jpg (413x509 187.53 KB, 13.56K)

Am I reading that right?
The US provided 25% of Russia's food through the lend-lease program?

"See, this is why they were doom to fail from the start. Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."
crickets
Also, while it doesn't give a percentage there, didn't the amount of munitions supplied to Russia basically equate to one in three 'shots' fired?

I never knew it was THAT much.
Fucking muttmerica…

Attached: Russia grateful for Lend Lease subhuman vatnik BTFO.png (1366x4038, 1.35M)

And 40 fucking percent of lead too. Jesus fuck. Forty fucking percent. Almost 1 in 2 bullets…

You wasn't feeding just russia, it was the entire unoccupied USSR. Not all domestic food consumed by citizens had been displayed in stats, but consider the fact food supply did not consist of some needless garbage, it was a literally lifesaving meat and so on.

28th of June, 1914

Attached: 2be5fae47d77bbac05bd533428786b27272ca3834bae23cf96550b1cf075000a.jpg (651x922 58.6 KB, 962.76K)

I can't read these posters but I assume this is Stalin era anti-American propaganda from the USSR.
Stalin and the political machine he lead were as evil as anything Hitler is painted with.

Jesus christ lad, get your head out of your ass.

No, it's a parody of a concert poster

I know that americans can be a little bit mentally challenged sometimes but come the fuck on

Famous*

Lenin and Trotsky were the true evil, the guys leftists still revere today.
Stalin did what he could to keep the country to turn into a literal wasteland madmax style (a.k.a. "true socialism"), which at that point could only meant "mass violence and oppression" (but it only paled to the wholesome slaughters orchestrated under Lenin and Trotsky. Stalin sent everyone that might disagree to prison. Leninist-Trotskyst just shot them…).
Just assume that Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin and Hitler were sane and competent (which they all were) but that the ones that actually cared about their country are not the ones that the MSM tells you they did and you will have an entire different point of view.
Suddenly it makes sense that Hitler and Stalin were OK allying. Wouldn't Stalin reason for purging the military when he did because the military was indeed preparing to attack Germany AGAINST Stalin orders, which Hitler didn't knew (also the Brits tricked Germans spies in Britain into believing that Stalin and Churchill were corresponding).

That's also the only logical explanation of the political events of the period.

He turned a backward 3rd world agrarian shithole into a world superpower
What he was supposed to do with his enemies? Let them operate freely and undermine USSR? Not to mention that most of those people were released after they served their time/were no longer a threat.

Russia has always been a regional power, and it was industrilazing well before the commies take over.

The myth that Russia was this basic feudal kingdom in the goddamn 20th century is a goddamn joke.

The USSR only turns into a superpower by winning WW2 btw.

LOL most of them are dead.

And to what part of that did Stalin contribute? Imperial Russia was seeing an extremely rapid growth rate and industrialization right before WWI. They were backwards compared to the rest of Europe but they had the fastest growing economy in the world for 18 of the 25 years right before WWI. Most of the capital required for industry had already been put in place before the commies took over and you can't seriously credit Stalin for any of Russia's industrial capacity, and thus for any influence they had as a world power. It's a wonder that the commies were able to coast on that for as long as they did.

Not true, especially if Hitler can expand to Spain instead.

Honestly, via Italy, they can touch down and occupy the Middle east and get all the oil fields they want.

About the time that hitler started trying to control literally everything. He should have left the war to the professionals.

Why are auscucks such literal subhumans? Blitz was Hitlers idea, you dumb cunt.

The date Hitler was goaded into attacking Poland. It was a rather brilliant diplomatic maneuver from Stalin. He gave assurances to western nations that certainly he would join their anti-german front. Western powers in turn gave assurances (lol) to Poland that Britain, France, and Soviet Union would march to their aid the moment Germany did something stupid, and that Germany would collapse within a few weeks due to marxist uprising that would inevitably follow the outbreak of war.

And Stalin managed to broker a deal with both Germany and Western Allies that gave him completely free hands in eastern Europe and Scandinavia. Certainly, there was jewish tricks of relativism at play when it came to actual wording and interpretation of both deals, but, nevertheless, he got free hands to do whatever he pleased in eastern europe and in scandinavia with the blessings of western allies and (to some extend) nazi germany. And he got what he wanted from both Nazi-Germany and Western capitalist powers, a war in western europe.

There is just no snowballs chance in hell for Germany to win a war against half the planet really, especially since FDR and federal reserve was more than happy to throw LOADS O MONEY-at western allies in order to get even MORE MONEY later on. And Stalin was going to be a homo and attack later anyways.

Probably the most disgusting thing about the whole war was that there was no way of avoiding it. Churchill wanted dead germans, Stalin wanted dead capitalist, FDR and his kikes and stalinist wanted LOADSAMONEY (and dead westeners), Polish leadership wanted clay, preferably from dead germans, and germans most likely would have liked to have not-so-dead-germans. Oh, and some certain french politicians and political players wanted dead germans and capitalist, which then led to some democratic-trickery to occur, forcing France to declare war against Germany as well.

Attached: FDF old rad1.jpg (354x500, 29.69K)

As said, it could have been avoided if Hitler didn't take the goddamn bait.

You are a retard. Read the post again, and then shoot yourself, you fuckwit.

Oh yeah poor little innocent germans, they didnu nuffin they were good boys, need money for dem programs. And were literally forced into the war because they were so innocent and helpless

Yeah no, absolutely no fucking body is forcing Hitler to attack Poland and Russia.

Just like Saddam could have avoided the second gulf war if he had just given up his wmd's, right?

The jew will always find a reason to start a war, no matter how stupid it is. Be it the gulf of tomkin fake attack, or emanuel goldstein bin laden blowing up american skyscrapers or saddam hiding wmd's.

if he had waited another year stalin would have been done upgrading and re-organizing his army and then he would have easily steamrolled germany.

Saddam wasn't in the position of Germany was.
A fortified Germany is going to last.

Yeah, apparently the slavs are super weak, yet one year in the hyperbolic chamber, they are gonna get swole and destroy Germany in one sweep.

Do you honestly believe that?

Oh yeah, except the pollacks committing genocide on ethnic Germans, and the Soviets building up their military forces in preparation of invading Germany, except for those things there was almost no reason to invade either of them.

You're a filthy faggot who knows nothing of history, please kill yourself you retarded chink.

Which again, has no proof.
You mean like the germans who are also building up their forces?

Yeah they actually aren't.
I have argued with many of your kind of faggots on Zig Forums and they never can substance their argument, they can never, NEVER accept Hitler made a blunder.

And in the long run blitz is a shitty form of war that gives you no chance to consolidate your territory and build a logistics chain. Thanks to using blitz all day every day the German supply lines consisted of plundering resources from newly-conquered countries to repay domestic debts.

Blizt is what you do when you don't have logistics and want to end the war fast.

It's zerg rush in RTS term.

Except that it literally has, and anyone who has studied it would tell you so.
wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/wrsynopsis.html

KILL YOURSELF YOU FUCKING RICE NIGGER RETARD.

That's sort of impossible, because the Soviet buildup in an offensive organization on the German border started when the Germans were just done invading France, the fact that Stalin was planning to invade Germany is undisputed, the only question is when he intended on invading.

Except all the reasons there were, but I understand that it is more important for a cuckfaggot like you to keep to your dogmatic worldview and understanding of history than to actually be correct.

Except for all the evidence that is provided, only by cuckfaggots like you to start screaming "THAT IS NOT WHAT I WAS TAUGHT IN HISTORY CLASS SO IT IS UNTRUE!!!!" and then you promptly shut your ears and start behaving like the chink nigger retard you are, you are intellectually dishonest, you are incapable of independent logical thought, you can only repeat the stupid childish things you've been brainwashed with since childhood.

People like you can never accept that there was a reason Hitler invaded Poland, any evidence in favor of it is brushed aside because it doesn't fit your childish and historically incorrect view. You have no interest in reason, or facts.

And I disagree anyhow, it's clear the US used blitz in desert storm and did very well with it.

Blitz is a very good form of warfare, but logistics, especially air tranportation helps it each other.

Like who? Who exactly?
Your links are all about german sources, and some are fucking pre-war reports from german sources saying da ebul poles are massacring da germans. Do you trust 9/11 and various other false flags as well?
Germans have built up their forces since 1933 when Hitler got into power, you retard, how is it impossible? You think in 1939, the germans just shit out some tanks JUST before the invasion.
Yeah man, it's so nice, let's invade Poland and Russia and got even more germans KILLED, wow, so fucking heroic! Never mind there's no proof that the poles massacre germans at all.
Where?
But I can, Hitler wanted to get back lost territory, but that's a retarded reason considering everyone hates you for it.

This muh german massacre is you using the exact jew tactics you are deriding the jews for.

Forgot to ask this, by who? By who exactly that says this is undisputed?

see

1. That source doesn't say a goddamn thing about poles attacking le ethnic germans (meanwhile, there are indeed a shitload of germans who were deported from Poland by the USSR after the war is over despite le genocide)
2. That source relies on some Soviet document that is not directly correlated in the book.

That evidence has already been provieded, and all you have to say is "b-but I don't like dat source doe". You have no argument against the reliability of the source, you can't argue on the subject, you can't debunk the evidence that is provided, you have lost.

He cites several other authors and books in favor of his arguments, if you're not retarded you would have actually read the link.

Yeah, no, there's no evidences in those sources. Nice try. None.
I do, I have no reason to trust it all, the same way I have no reason to trust jews, poles or brit sources.
Actually, I already read it. His proposition is based entirely on a Soviet document "uncovered", which he does not correlate in the book.

Again, nothing new for the "nazis" side.

I personally once knew a German who told me that after serving in the German army he was drafted into the Polish army after 1945, and that the Poles destroyed German cemeteries and looted the graves in order to get at the golden wedding bands the corpses were still wearing.

this is what this kike considers evidence.

Dr. Kurt Lück (op.cit.) writes on page 271: "Poles had thrown dead dogs into many of the graves of murdered ethnic Germans. Near Neustadt in West Prussia, the Poles slashed open the belly of a captured German officer, tore out his intestines and stuffed a dead dog inside. This report is reliably documented."15 And a German mother grieves for her sons. She writes on October 12th, 1939: "Oh, but that our dear boys [her sons] had to die such terrible deaths. 12 people were lying in the ditch, and all of them had been cruelly beaten to death. Eyes gouged out, skulls smashed, heads split open, teeth knocked out… little Karl had a hole in his head, probably from a stabbing implement. Little Paul had the flesh torn off his arms, and all this while they were still alive. Now they rest in a mass grave of more than 40, free at last of their terror and pain. They have peace now, but I never shall…"16 And between 1919 and 1921 400,000 ethnic Germans fled their homes and crossed the German border in order to save their lives.

sounds like the imagination of a jewish mind

it says for example that from looking at corpses the reliable observors could tell that the injuries were inflicted whilst still alive? I don't doubt the polish and english government instigating the war but claiming ethnic poles are jew-tier commie murderers like were seen in the gulags is a delusional lie