• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could Germany Have Won WWII?[W:513]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

I mentioned the attack through Rumania to at least two other posters who were similarly confused.

Romania wasn't an ally until the war already broke out. In fact the only ally Germany had was a Slovakian puppet when war broke out.
 
Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Romania wasn't an ally until the war already broke out. In fact the only ally Germany had was a Slovakian puppet when war broke out.

My point was the answer to some of the posters ( I don't remember which) who thought that the attack on the USSR was possible only through Poland. PERIOD.

In my comments to them, and one of the comments referring to the viability of Rumanian partisans I mentioned that Rumania BELATEDLY was an ally to the Nazis, and more to the point, were less prone to be motivated as partisans than the Poles.


Could be you mistook me for Gautama whose ideas I seem to share.
 
Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

My point was the answer to some of the posters ( I don't remember which) who thought that the attack on the USSR was possible only through Poland. PERIOD.

In my comments to them, and one of the comments referring to the viability of Rumanian partisans I mentioned that Rumania BELATEDLY was an ally to the Nazis, and more to the point, were less prone to be motivated as partisans than the Poles.

Could be you mistook me for Gautama whose ideas I seem to share.

Looking back with the benefit of hindsight, we know that invading Poland triggered the ire of Britain and France and ww2. However, at the time with Chamberlain eating out of Hitler's hand, why would he avoid Poland? Moving through Czechoslovakia and Romania (admittedly both under Nazi influence) is an awfully circuitous route to the USSR. And it leaves open a very large northern flank through Poland and the Baltic countries which the USSR would have no qualms about exploiting for a counter-attack. On the other hand, Poland was in no position to face modern warfare. Germany had carefully crafted a rebel threat to German citizens in Poland, thus providing a reason to invade. Attacking through Poland would still leave open a southern flank, but a much more easily guarded one. And attacking through Poland would create much shorter supply lines. Poland was easily the most logical avenue to get at the USSR. And why not? The Romanian oilfields was only one objective. Hitler was after lebensraum (living room), and getting it from the untermensch (sub-Humans) would have seemed relatively easy to him. I doubt he saw the Poles as much better. So I just cannot see, given the information at the time, why Hitler would so carefully respect Polish territory. He had no reason to.
 
Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Looking back with the benefit of hindsight, we know that invading Poland triggered the ire of Britain and France and ww2. However, at the time with Chamberlain eating out of Hitler's hand, why would he avoid Poland? Moving through Czechoslovakia and Romania (admittedly both under Nazi influence) is an awfully circuitous route to the USSR. And it leaves open a very large northern flank through Poland and the Baltic countries which the USSR would have no qualms about exploiting for a counter-attack. On the other hand, Poland was in no position to face modern warfare. Germany had carefully crafted a rebel threat to German citizens in Poland, thus providing a reason to invade. Attacking through Poland would still leave open a southern flank, but a much more easily guarded one. And attacking through Poland would create much shorter supply lines. Poland was easily the most logical avenue to get at the USSR. And why not? The Romanian oilfields was only one objective. Hitler was after lebensraum (living room), and getting it from the untermensch (sub-Humans) would have seemed relatively easy to him. I doubt he saw the Poles as much better. So I just cannot see, given the information at the time, why Hitler would so carefully respect Polish territory. He had no reason to.

We all know the outcome of Germany attacking Poland, incurring the war with England & France ...... and the resulting series of events resulting in the loss of the War for Hitler.

My scenario, by attacking FIRST the USSR thru Rumania offers the possibility that Germany might've won the War. Thus, assuming Germany conquered USSR (a very plausible scenario). Accumulated all the resources, THEN, attacked Poland, getting England & France into the War. This way, Germany woulda been fighting ONE front at a time.

As pointed out previously, it is extremely unlikely that England & France woulda come to the aid of the USSR, even though by this time they would've been alerted and taken some pathetic precautionary measures that woulda amounted to didley squat compared to the accumulated USSR resources that Germany would have had after conquering the USSR.

All I am saying is that this alternative MIGHT HAVE won the war for Germany......PROVIDING AMERICA DIDN'T GET IN THE WAR WITH GERMANY ANY TIME THE ABOVE WAS GOING ON.
 
Last edited:
Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

I'm sorry, but this is an absolutey new theory and I would very much doubt it unless you can present some data, quotes, statistics, or such

Historians don't connect the dots, they only collect the dots. Their interpretation of Stalin as insane, incompetent, timid, and trusting Hitler is not the Stalin we know from the way he ruled the Soviet Union. Stalin won, Hitler lost. Stalin took over a huge part of Europe. In fact, FDR and other leaders may have let him try that believing the historians' misinterpretation of the trap he set for Germany and Eastern Europe too.

The trick was obvious in how after a pathetic but fake resistance to the blitzkrieg, all of a sudden Stalin had millions of his best soldiers to stop it, let it rot from its overextension, and then blitz it back to Berlin.
 
Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

We all know the outcome of Germany attacking Poland, incurring the war with England & France ...... and the resulting series of events resulting in the loss of the War for Hitler.

My scenario, by attacking FIRST the USSR thru Rumania offers the possibility that Germany might've won the War. Thus, assuming Germany conquered USSR (a very plausible scenario). Accumulated all the resources, THEN, attacked Poland, getting England & France into the War. This way, Germany woulda been fighting ONE front at a time.

As pointed out previously, it is extremely unlikely that England & France woulda come to the aid of the USSR, even though by this time they would've been alerted and taken some pathetic precautionary measures that woulda amounted to didley squat compared to the accumulated USSR resources that Germany would have had after conquering the USSR.

All I am saying is that this alternative MIGHT HAVE won the war for Germany......PROVIDING AMERICA DIDN'T GET IN THE WAR WITH GERMANY ANY TIME THE ABOVE WAS GOING ON.

Yes, I understand, and for the sake of argument, we'll assume England, France, and the US do not react to an attack on the USSR. My question is, knowing what Hitler knew at the time, why would he go around Poland? Going through Czechoslovakia and Romania and then turning left to head North, once in the USSR, seems awfully circuitous to me. Why would he do that, when the route through Poland is more direct?
 
Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

This is how Germany could have won:

-Triple fighter pilot training on day 1
-cut funding for Vengeance weapon program/research
-increased funding for ME262 fighter and high altitude FW190-D
-Pull out of Stalingrad when the noose started to tighten
-Abandon Japan, not declare war on the US
-Not turn down anti-Soviet freedom fighters
 
Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Yes, I understand, and for the sake of argument, we'll assume England, France, and the US do not react to an attack on the USSR. My question is, knowing what Hitler knew at the time, why would he go around Poland? Going through Czechoslovakia and Romania and then turning left to head North, once in the USSR, seems awfully circuitous to me. Why would he do that, when the route through Poland is more direct?

By going through Poland, which Hitler did .......England & France entered the War.

POLAND HAD A TREATY WITH ENGLAND & FRANCE. IN ORDER TO HAVE AVOIDED THE WAR WITH ENGLAND & FRANCE, HITLER WOULD HAVE HAD TO GO THRU RUMANIA !!!
 
Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Historians don't connect the dots, they only collect the dots. Their interpretation of Stalin as insane, incompetent, timid, and trusting Hitler is not the Stalin we know from the way he ruled the Soviet Union. Stalin won, Hitler lost. Stalin took over a huge part of Europe. In fact, FDR and other leaders may have let him try that believing the historians' misinterpretation of the trap he set for Germany and Eastern Europe too.

The trick was obvious in how after a pathetic but fake resistance to the blitzkrieg, all of a sudden Stalin had millions of his best soldiers to stop it, let it rot from its overextension, and then blitz it back to Berlin.

So you're just another brilliant genius who's smarter than all the historians and experts with just pure speculation? Got it
 
Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

This is how Germany could have won:

-Triple fighter pilot training on day 1
-cut funding for Vengeance weapon program/research
-increased funding for ME262 fighter and high altitude FW190-D
-Pull out of Stalingrad when the noose started to tighten
-Abandon Japan, not declare war on the US
-Not turn down anti-Soviet freedom fighters

The "shaky point" in your scenario is that FDR was dead set against Hitler. And woulda forced America to enter the war against Germany sooner or later. Once America entered the War against the Nazis, Hitler woulda been kaput.

If Hitler didn't declare war on America, your point has validity in that America might not have entered the war once it had its hands full with Japan.
 
Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

So you're just another brilliant genius who's smarter than all the historians and experts with just pure speculation? Got it

A significant number of people get falling down drunk occasionally in their journey through life. Promey musta got smashed outa his skull and imagined himself to be Clausewitz, Sun Tsu or, maybe even, the Proud South Korean with his somewhat bizarre military conclusion.

This may not sound as though it is an excuse for PrometheusBound's contribution to our Military Knowledge, but I sincerely think it is.
 
Last edited:
Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

By going through Poland, which Hitler did .......England & France entered the War.

POLAND HAD A TREATY WITH ENGLAND & FRANCE. IN ORDER TO HAVE AVOIDED THE WAR WITH ENGLAND & FRANCE, HITLER WOULD HAVE HAD TO GO THRU RUMANIA !!!

Which would have started off a war, just as much as it would have through Poland.

You have to remember that there was an agreement in Romania, similar to that with Poand between Germany and the USSR. The Nazi's and Soviets had exerted pressure on the nation when they declaired itself neutral, and together forced Romania to come in on the side of the Germans. The end result was that much of Romania was carved up, some of the territories going over to Soviet control.

The moment Germany would have entered Romania, it would have been the same as a declaration of War, just as when they entered Eastern Poland.

And they could not have just invaded through Romania. They would have had to pass through Czechoslovakia and Hungary, an action that would have been impossible to hide. So an attempt to travel through such a southern route would have ruined all chance of surprise.

For Germany to win WWII, defeating the Soviets was nowhere near as important as defeating France and neutralizing England. Having control of Europe, Hitler could have concentrated on unifying his power, and sat there for decades. And I am not even sure that defeating the "Soviet Union" would have been all that effective. Remember, just a few decades before most of the ruling members of the Soviet government had been guerrillas, fighting against the White Russians and each other. They knew how to blend into the countryside, and with the dialectic fought a partaisan war to last decades.

One of the keys to understanding and predicting outcomes in WWII is to actually understand the players at work, and how they actually fought and believed. This is something that is sadly missing when armchair generals simply look at a map. Poland was really the only way for an invasion to or from Europe and Asia. It was the way that the Mongols invaded in 1240, how Peter the Great and Charles XII fought their back and forth Great Northern War of 1700-1721, and how Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812. The only real route to and from Europe and Asia has always been through Poland, that is one of the major reasons that nation has been crushed and conquered and propped up over and over and over again. Either it is invaded to move through, or propped up to help slow an invasion.

There really is no route North to take, and the Southern routes are to not conducive to an invasion. Mountains, gorges, valleys, forests, these are natural bottlenecks that no general wants to place his army into when passing through on an invasion. Just look at Thermopylae.
 
Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

By going through Poland, which Hitler did .......England & France entered the War.

POLAND HAD A TREATY WITH ENGLAND & FRANCE. IN ORDER TO HAVE AVOIDED THE WAR WITH ENGLAND & FRANCE, HITLER WOULD HAVE HAD TO GO THRU RUMANIA !!!

Settle down. I can read even without the bold and caps.

France had a treaty with Czechoslovakia, and this did not result in war with France.
http://www.forost.ungarisches-institut.de/pdf/19251016-4.pdf
 
Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Which would have started off a war, just as much as it would have through Poland.

You have to remember that there was an agreement in Romania, similar to that with Poand between Germany and the USSR. The Nazi's and Soviets had exerted pressure on the nation when they declaired itself neutral, and together forced Romania to come in on the side of the Germans. The end result was that much of Romania was carved up, some of the territories going over to Soviet control.

The moment Germany would have entered Romania, it would have been the same as a declaration of War, just as when they entered Eastern Poland.

And they could not have just invaded through Romania. They would have had to pass through Czechoslovakia and Hungary, an action that would have been impossible to hide. So an attempt to travel through such a southern route would have ruined all chance of surprise.

For Germany to win WWII, defeating the Soviets was nowhere near as important as defeating France and neutralizing England. Having control of Europe, Hitler could have concentrated on unifying his power, and sat there for decades. And I am not even sure that defeating the "Soviet Union" would have been all that effective. Remember, just a few decades before most of the ruling members of the Soviet government had been guerrillas, fighting against the White Russians and each other. They knew how to blend into the countryside, and with the dialectic fought a partaisan war to last decades.

One of the keys to understanding and predicting outcomes in WWII is to actually understand the players at work, and how they actually fought and believed. This is something that is sadly missing when armchair generals simply look at a map. Poland was really the only way for an invasion to or from Europe and Asia. It was the way that the Mongols invaded in 1240, how Peter the Great and Charles XII fought their back and forth Great Northern War of 1700-1721, and how Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812. The only real route to and from Europe and Asia has always been through Poland, that is one of the major reasons that nation has been crushed and conquered and propped up over and over and over again. Either it is invaded to move through, or propped up to help slow an invasion.

There really is no route North to take, and the Southern routes are to not conducive to an invasion. Mountains, gorges, valleys, forests, these are natural bottlenecks that no general wants to place his army into when passing through on an invasion. Just look at Thermopylae.

I disagree. Rumania had a very high regard for Nazi Germany. This is substantiated by the fact that, grudgingly or not, Rumania belatedly became an Ally of Germany. Thus, Germany coulda passed thru Rumania as an ALLY.

That would render all of your ensuing paragraphs void.

Bottom line: I concede that the concept of FIRST attacking the USSR is speculative. Hence, different scenarios no matter how they disagree with mine, are most definitely legitimate. Don't know about Promey's though.
 
Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Settle down. I can read even without the bold and caps.

France had a treaty with Czechoslovakia, and this did not result in war with France.
http://www.forost.ungarisches-institut.de/pdf/19251016-4.pdf

And the treaty of Versailles was supposed to prevent the rearmarment of germany, they ignored that to. Poland was just the last straw, up till then they (England/France) thought they could buy peace with Hitler. Poland was the proof that they could not. If Hitler went for Romania or anything else really, the result would have been the same, Britain/France would be forced to admit Hitler could not be bought off and war would have started.
 
Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Settle down. I can read even without the bold and caps.

France had a treaty with Czechoslovakia, and this did not result in war with France.
http://www.forost.ungarisches-institut.de/pdf/19251016-4.pdf



Well, you didn't give me the impression that you could since you kept boiling that cabbage, certainly more than twice.

I am settled down, and I am even considering your contradictory statement alluded to following this sentence just as worthy as Promey's pronouncements.

As to your comment that France having a treaty with Czechoslovakia and doing didley squat as far as declaring a war against Germany ......... that simply underlines my point, and further defeats your premise that Germany going through Rumania, especially as an ally, woulda resulted in a war with England and France.
 
Last edited:
Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Well, you didn't give me the impression that you could since you kept boiling that cabbage, certainly more than twice.

I am settled down, and I am even considering your repeated aberrant interpretation just as worthy as Promey's.

As to your comment that France having a treaty with Czechoslovakia and doing didley squat as far as declaring a war against Germany ......... that simply underlines my point, and further defeats your premise that Germany going through Rumania as an ally woulda resulted in a war with England and France.

Germany was already in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. By invading Czechoslovakia, Germany was demonstrated to be an aggressor, and this should have triggered a military response from France. Chamberlain cooled hot tempers on this issue, thus preventing conflict. But then, Germany moving a large army through Romania would make clear that Chamberlain's efforts had failed. Allied with Romania or not, Britain and France would see this movement as a final straw and likely declare war while a large portion of the German army is, not in Germany, nor able to defend it from British and French assault. Flanks. Always cover your flanks.
 
Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

I disagree. Rumania had a very high regard for Nazi Germany. This is substantiated by the fact that, grudgingly or not, Rumania belatedly became an Ally of Germany. Thus, Germany coulda passed thru Rumania as an ALLY.

That would render all of your ensuing paragraphs void.

Bottom line: I concede that the concept of FIRST attacking the USSR is speculative. Hence, different scenarios no matter how they disagree with mine, are most definitely legitimate. Don't know about Promey's though.

"High Regard" does not mean they will join them in a fight. Spain had "high regard" for Germany also, but they remained neutral in the war.

Romania also had a similar stance, and like Spain tried to remain neutral. But it was pretty much forced at gunpoint to join them. And any attempt to send in German troups would have been seen by the Soviets as preparation for an invasion.

And because of terrain, there is simply no way Germany could have attacked the Soviets without first attacking Poland or some other nation. And any way you look at it, this would have meant a war with somebody.
 
Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Some very much believe that if Germany had left russia alone and never entered it...they would have had a very good chance of winning the war.
Some forget we were fighting on two fronts and we were the mainstay of ww2 without us europe would be goosestepping today. They misused their resources chasing the russian army...that just continuously backed up and scourged and burned everything useful until the germans could no longer get supplies to their front...the russians wore them out.
 
Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

"High Regard" does not mean they will join them in a fight. Spain had "high regard" for Germany also, but they remained neutral in the war.

Romania also had a similar stance, and like Spain tried to remain neutral. But it was pretty much forced at gunpoint to join them. And any attempt to send in German troups would have been seen by the Soviets as preparation for an invasion.

And because of terrain, there is simply no way Germany could have attacked the Soviets without first attacking Poland or some other nation. And any way you look at it, this would have meant a war with somebody.

You have your opinion and I have mine.

Seems like the concept of "beating a dead horse" is becoming a reality.
 
Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

"High Regard" does not mean they will join them in a fight. Spain had "high regard" for Germany also, but they remained neutral in the war.

Romania also had a similar stance, and like Spain tried to remain neutral. But it was pretty much forced at gunpoint to join them. And any attempt to send in German troups would have been seen by the Soviets as preparation for an invasion.

And because of terrain, there is simply no way Germany could have attacked the Soviets without first attacking Poland or some other nation. And any way you look at it, this would have meant a war with somebody.

Yeah, getting a mechanized army through this Romanian terrain would have been slow, slow, slow. So much for surprise.

the-road-to-pestera.webp
 
Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

You have your opinion and I have mine.

Seems like the concept of "beating a dead horse" is becoming a reality.

Mine is not a "mere opinion" however. As you can see, I back mine up with facts, as in Spain remaining neutral. And if any nation had cause to join Germany, it was Spain. Who's leader in many ways owed his control of the nation to Nazi Germany.

Spain's Civil War was bloody, with Soviet and other forces (including mercenaries from the United States) fighting for the Republicans, and the victorious Nationalists supported by both Italy and Germany. Generalismo Franco owed everything to the Axis powers, yet he remained neutral. If such a nation that owes so much to Germany would remain neutral, why would Romania (which was seperated from Germany but bordered the Soviet Union) would willingly jump into a conflict one the side opposite of her larger and closer neighbor simply makes no sense, either militarily or politically. It would be like trying to get India trying to get Afghanistan to join her in a treaty against Iran. Afghanistan would have no interest, because they know who would be crushed in the middle of such an alliance.
 
Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Yeah, getting a mechanized army through this Romanian terrain would have been slow, slow, slow. So much for surprise.

View attachment 67132186

That is why civilians make mistakes when they look at maps. They look and see political borders and alliances. Military people, we see terrain and obstacles. Compare these two maps:

082.jpg


m21.jpg


One is how a civilian looks at an area, the other is how somebody in the military looks at the same area. Or here is another, this is how most people would see it on Google Maps:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=jord...=0.398991,1.344452&hnear=Jordan+Lake&t=m&z=12

This is how I look at it:

naha.png


Quite formidable terrain there.
 
Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

I always wonder why people don't instead look at, why did Hitler attack France and the West in the first place. Why did Germany not attack and do away with Russia first. Through Chzechoslovakia or their Ally, Romania? They could have amassed troops and attacked, tacking out Russia and then turning to the West. He could have completely ignored Poland for years and made a sneak attack on France. Essentially Island Hope around Europe. Solidify Italy as a power instead of seeing their pathetic army get their asses handed to them over and over. There are lots of ways that they could have done things much better.

Never underestimate the capabilities, of a wild-man, such as Adolf Hitler.

What maybe drove Adolf is he was of paternal Jewish heritage, like many Germans, including Rosenberg and Himmler, who were involved with the Thune Society (check it out). Speer wrote Adolf was afraid, of being outed, as a Mischling, and Hitler's grandfather was actually Jewish.

I have been unable to confirm or deny Speer's allegations, but I happen to know people with German surnames, ending in "ler" tend to be of paternal Jewish ancestry. So Adolf said stuff, about how if Jews started another war, it would be the end of them, and sure enough, Adolf and millions of other people died, including millions of Jews, in war, which Adolf started.

Now let's see, if Israel starts another world war, which it might just do, like some prophets warn.

Yasser Arafat's relative was a WWII figure, the Grand Mufti of Palestine or somewhere, I forget, and I'm not searching this, for a rant, so if you are interested, Hitler ignored this guy, who told him to invade Palestine, where Zionist settlers had been a problem, since 1882. The Zionist settlers were and still are nasty gangsters, who wanted to found and impose a corrupt, grabby, Zionist Jewish state, on the rest of the world.

But Adolf was really only trying to kill a lot of people. So instead of pincering the British, at Suez, Adolf betrayed Rommel, invaded the Soviet Union, messed up the Wehrmacht, all he could, and his failure made history. But the failure wasn't just Adolf's idiocy or ignorance.

Adolf was an Austrian, of Jewish descent.

Were the Japanese almost as crazy? Once Hitler had committed to an eastern front, the Japanese took FDR's bait, when FDR moved the Pacific Fleet, from San Diego, to Pearl Harbor, instead of more actively fighting Zhukov, who was at the Manchuko front, fighting an undeclared war, against the Japanese Army, while Georgi was deployed, with Siberian divisions, which then moved to reinforce Stalingrad, to save the Great Patriotic War, for the Soviets.

FDR, of course, was a seditious conspirator, who conspired, with Gen.George Marshall, to suppress all intel, into Pearl, which was so interpreted, by all involved, decoded messages from the IJF were suppressed, when the Japanese Navy was en route, to attack, British intel was suppressed, from both Asia and London, the radar contact with the 1st wave was suppressed, on Dec.7, 1941, with the sinking of a Japanese midget sub, by the USS Ward.

See Robert Stinnett, Day of Deceit, from Stinnett's FOI action.

NO ALERT ISSUED, AT PEARL HARBOR. The battleships would have helped the Navy win, at Guadalcanal, which dragged on, for months.

Americans also entertained seditious contractors, who profiteered, at cost-overruns and lousy, corruptly contracted designs, including a torpedo, designed by a Naval officer, who didn't know what he was doing, so his magnetic torpedoes didn't adjust for the Earth's magnetic field OR explode, when they did hit a target, and they stayed in service, for a long time, to kill a lot of US Navy personnel.

Gen.Marshall convinced Thomas E. Dewey, to refrain, from charging the dying FDR, with sedition, during the 1944 election, somehow. Marshall became Sec'y of State, to lend his name, to the famous Marshall Plan.

False Flag ops have been a regular part of waste, fraud, and abuse, in US defense shenanigans, since the taking of Hawaii, in the 19th Century.
 
Last edited:
Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Just out of curiousity, how exactly was Germany going to win world war II without a surface navy and any amphibious capabilities at all?
 
Back
Top Bottom