How could he have won?

By unifying the Germanic states through diplomatic means instead of by brute force?

By not being a Nazi with Nazi war aims.

>>17910801 (OP)
Assassinate Stalin
Poison Stalin
Make Stalin choke on a fishbone

>>17910801 (OP)
If his goal was to achieve true Pan-Germanism, his best bet would've been to make Austria and Switzerland client states. As tempting as it would be to invade Poland to make it a bulwark against the USSR, he should've just stopped at the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. This would've been the only way he could possibly have achieved his goals without pissing everyone else off or at least not invoking a global war

>>17910801 (OP)
By getting Japan to make anime much sooner

>>17910803
>By unifying the Germanic states through diplomatic means instead of by brute force?
Germans can't be diplomatic, they are grunts.
The only diplomatic Germanics were the Franks and they became roman catholics in the process

He couldn't because that's exactly as the narrative was written. He was a figure that was made purposely to make the other team seem like the biggest victims and heroes that the world ever done seen.

>>17910801 (OP)
By starting the nuclear program already in 1933. Every other answer is a cope because America would've inevitably gotten the nukes first and then what?

>>17910801 (OP)
Easy, don't pick a fight with multiple world powers at the same time.

Germany never should have declared war on America after Pearl Harbor. They should have said, "hey, that was all the Japs. We're sorry, but we had nothing to do with it."

OR should have bided their time with Russia until the war was over on the Western Front.

Germany could beat Russia OR America, but certainly not both attacking from each side.

Germany only had 10% of their troops in Western Europe at the time of D Day. And it was old men and shell-shocked/wounded, soldiers from the Western front.

At 100% German troop capacity, D Day would have been a meat grinder for the allies. We had to really struggle against 10% of the German troops on D Day.

>>17910905
>Germany could beat Russia OR America
lmao they wouldn't be able to beat UK 1v1 not to mention fucking America or USSR

>>17910917
>>17910917
Depends on how you classify victory against the US or USSR.

I'm saying a victory would be not allowing US/Canada to ever get a foothold in Western Europe. This would be a very reasonable goal if they weren't fighting Russia at the same time. They could make it so difficult that the US would eventually stop trying.

Obviously, Nazi Germany is never going to get the US to surrender with an invasion on US soil. That could never happen, with those numbers of troops, planes/tanks, and the logistics of moving it all across an ocean.

Also, during the first bombing of England, nearly all the RAF planes were chilling in the hangers which could have been easily destroyed by the Luftwaffe. Hitler wouldn't give the order to do this because he thought it was cowardly. IF they destroyed 75% of UK's planes sitting in the hanger, an invasion of Britain would be very very possible. Britain would be unable to counter German Air superiority.


Also assuming no war on the Western Front, *complete surrender of the USSR* would have been possible. The Germans were steamrolling up until Stalingrad. Arguably, if they just bypassed heavily fortified cities and cut off the supplies to them, it would have been very possible.

>>17910917
>lmao they wouldn't be able to beat UK 1v1

>>17910926
>The Germans were steamrolling up until Stalingrad
Anon, why did the vaunted German Wehrmacht collapse outside the gates of Moscow in December 1941?

>>17910905
>Germany never should have declared war on America after Pearl Harbor. They should have said, "hey, that was all the Japs. We're sorry, but we had nothing to do with it."
Germany didnt declare war on USA because of Pearl Harbour you moron.
Germany was not obligated to do anything.
Japan did not declare war on the Soviets when Germany attacked, so why should Germany be compelled to declare war on USA if Japan attacks?
The war declaration happened because USA was already involved in the war (Lend-Lease, US escorting British convoys, Bases-for-destroyers deal, US occupation of Iceland, FDRs "shoot-on-sight" order etc).

>OR should have bided their time with Russia until the war was over on the Western Front.
They attacked Russia because the war with Britain was going nowhere.
In fact, they were losing. Germany did not have the resources for a sea and air and overseas warfare, and the British blockade was starving Germany.
Britain literally refused to sue for peace specifically because they were waiting for USSR/USA to get involved. Ending the war meant ending Russia as a factor, or otherwise gain her resources to fight the Commonwealth empire.
Also, Russia was outgrowing Germany. Hitler had a window of opportunity to strike.

>Germany could beat Russia OR America, but certainly not both attacking from each side.
More like Germany couldnt beat either. Germany cant beat USA and USA was always going to supply her enemies.

>Germany only had 10% of their troops in Western Europe at the time of D Day. And it was old men and shell-shocked/wounded, soldiers from the Western front.
You literally made this up. Moron.

>At 100% German troop capacity, D Day would have been a meat grinder for the allies. We had to really struggle against 10% of the German troops on D Day.
Without the eastern front, the allies wouldnt even attempt Overlord as we know it. Why would they? There is no reason to do it.
They would just bomb and starve Germany until someone says enough.

>>17910926
>Hitler wouldn't give the order to do this because he thought it was cowardly
Bullshit. Hitler was fine with aircraft factories being bombed to subdue the bongs but he got squeamish about combat-ready aircraft being destroyed before they were deployed? Get the fuck outta here

>>17910926
>I'm saying a victory would be not allowing US/Canada to ever get a foothold in Western Europe.
How is it a victory that Germany, along with the rest of occupied Europe, gets starved and bombed indefinetly?
The people, especially in occupied territory, will only put up with as much, especially if they are starving.

>Also, during the first bombing of England, nearly all the RAF planes were chilling in the hangers which could have been easily destroyed by the Luftwaffe.
Do you enjoy making shit up?

>Hitler wouldn't give the order to do this because he thought it was cowardly.
LOL

>IF they destroyed 75% of UK's planes sitting in the hanger, an invasion of Britain would be very very possible.
1. Every single Luftwaffe sortie was intercepted and they ALWAYS suffered more losses then Britain.
2. A victory in the air does not magically give Germany a navy to invade Britain with.

>Britain would be unable to counter German Air superiority.
Too bad Germany was never even close of gaining air superiority. And even if they did, it's not going to enable any invasion.

>Also assuming no war on the Western Front, *complete surrender of the USSR* would have been possible
Except the Germans were not looking for a surrender. They wanted total annihilation of the Soviet state, not a treaty.
Also, Barbarossa failed on its own accord. The Soviets recieved minimal western aid in 1941.
And the entire war with the USSR virtually relied on Barbarossa being successful.

>The Germans were steamrolling up until Stalingrad.
I can name a great many times they were either halted or pushed back by the Russians, long before Stalingrad.

>. Arguably, if they just bypassed heavily fortified cities and cut off the supplies to them, it would have been very possible.
You do realise that one city required an entire armygroup to isolate.
How many cities are we talking about Germany must siege?
And how many armies do we have to spare to conquer the rest of the country?

>>17910917
I hope this is bait. The only nation Nazi Germany wouldn't have been able to beat 1v1 was the US primarily because of being separated an ocean away.

>>17910801 (OP)
Don't siege Leningrad, just take it.

>>17911058
How will conquering Petrograd lead to total, complete victory?

>>17910926
>>17910938
>>17911035
hope you enjoy eating turnip and wood chips bread

>>17910952
Hitler thought that taking Moscow would be too cowardly so he ordered germans to back off, he wanted Russians to powerup to their 100% like Goku did to Frieza

>>17910801 (OP)
By mercilessly slaughtering the British at Dunkirk.

>>17910801 (OP)
Not initiating Operation Barbarossa. /thread

>>17910824
>>17910900
>>17911694
I'm thinking these are the answers. Wonder if he would have bombed Stalingrad.

>>17911694
??
>>17911705
The Germans almost flattened Stalingrad, though?

Not being himself.

>>17910803
Anon there was still peace after he unified the German lands

>>17911722
I mean bombing it before they did that. No idea what was logistically possible. GPT-5 over here is saying that it probably wouldn't have been enough to have steered the war outcome much assuming the bombs fell around 43, but if they developed them really, really early, and had a lot of them before the US declared war on them, then the story would be different. But I'm not sure they ever had the resources to do that.

Seems like they had no shot, Hitler was a frenzied methed-up madman. Maybe it'd have been prolonged through the Cold War if Hitler's stance toward commies and Slavs was different and he maintained an alliance with Stalin AND he had bombs. Maybe victory then if the US never entered the conflict and if the UK's far-right staged a successful coup.

The only way I see it:

1. They somehow prevent Dynamo and capture the BEF, and we will assume there is a chance that becaue of thiss, Halifax will gain enough support to force Churchill out of office/sue for peace.

2. Germany embrace the USSR as an ally and simply co-exist with her.

>>17910801 (OP)
>Hitler ought to have persuaded Franco and get Spain for oil
>a war in Iberia would cost allies lots of time, money, and men securing north African oil
>British and American ships would have been bombarded from the Spanish coast and Spanish islands.
>in eastern front, don't split the armies and head straight for Moscow
>instead, Hitler should have diverted his Moscow and Stalingrad offensives south to take Baku Azerbaijan instead, thus creating a Caspian trade route for Germany to purchase Iranian oil.
>assume the Founding Titan form and does the rumble, destroying every jew and anglo mercantile liberating the world from Mammonism
>reset everyone's memory to the moment before the Danzig stuff happened, not a single person will remember the mega war that happened
>All the bolsheviks will be suddenly dead and the Soviet Union gone, everyone will be confused but won't question it too much thanks to founding titan hyperborean powers
>proceed to build highways in the polish corridor

He could've won if he didn't go through with Operation Barbarossa and maintained a stronger alliance with the Soviets.

>>17910803
>>17910805
this really, someone like him could have gone down as the 20th centuries greatest statesman
i mean look at germany now, there was never any legitimate reason for them to go full-retard chimpout

Do everything for Battle of Britain:

* Maintain focus on RAF Fighter Command (no early switch to bombing cities)
* Delay Operation Barbarossa until Britain is neutralized
* Integrate Luftwaffe–Kriegsmarine planning for ''Sea Lion''
* Commit to winning the air war before invasion
* Choose a single clear objective (destroy RAF '''or''' force negotiation)
* Concentrate attacks on southeast England (11 Group’s area)
* Sustain attacks on radar stations to blind RAF
* Target aircraft factories and repair depots alongside airfields
* Ensure strict bomber escort discipline with fighters
* Use mass, staggered raids to overwhelm RAF defenses
* Combine day and night raids for constant pressure
* Introduce drop tanks for Bf 109s earlier to extend range
* Forward-base fighters along the Channel coast
* Increase use of Ju 88 bombers over slower types
* Upgrade bomber defensive armament
* Use Bf 110s as fighter-bombers rather than escorts
* Rotate fresh pilot units into heavy combat zones
* Reserve Stukas for high-value strikes after RAF is weakened
* Deploy U-boats to blockade Channel approaches
* Lay mines at key British ports to disrupt RAF supply lines

After that in 1941, delayed Operation Sea Lion has a ~35–40% of being feasible and a ~25–30% success rate.

>>17911884
>Hitler ought to have persuaded Franco and get Spain for oil
Except Franco was never interested in ww2 because he knew it was suicide.

>a war in Iberia would cost allies lots of time, money, and men securing north African oil
A war in Iberia would cost Germany lots of time, money, and men
Fixied it for you.

>in eastern front, don't split the armies and head straight for Moscow
And then have nearly a million Red Army men from Ukraine rain down on your flank.

>instead, Hitler should have diverted his Moscow and Stalingrad offensives south to take Baku Azerbaijan instead
Baku was never a target to begin with. They went for Grozny and Maikop.
Baku was another 1000km which was an impossible distance. In face even in the IRL timeline they never even got within bomber distance of Baku. The German advance never even reached Grozny, not because they were defeated in battle, but because the offensive could no longer be sustained any further distance.

>thus creating a Caspian trade route for Germany to purchase Iranian oil.
Same Iran which was under British and Soviet occupation. How are you expecting them to trade with Germany?

>>17912799
>Maintain focus on RAF Fighter Command (no early switch to bombing cities)
The reason they switched to bombing cities was because they were losing the battle.
RAF only grew as the battle progressed, and the Luftwaffe bombers failed to destroy any of their targets. Not a single airfield was put out of action.

>Commit to winning the air war before invasion
Which was impossible beause RAF shot down more planes than Luftwaffe, had fewer casualties, recovered more pilots, produced more aircrafts, trained more pilots, and maintained greater morale.
All while having greater access to raw material for a sustained war, whereas Germany did not.

>Choose a single clear objective (destroy RAF '''or''' force negotiation)
Why coninue on a failed strategy?

>Sustain attacks on radar stations to blind RAF
>Target aircraft factories and repair depots alongside airfields
There was a major problem with this, and that is that precision bombing was a meme. Not just for Germany but also for Britain. The technology simply did not exist.
This is what actually happened:
1. The Luftwaffe bombers couldnt locate their targets
2. When the Luftwaffe bombers located their targets they couldnt identify their targets.
3. When the Luftwaffe bombers identified their targets they couldnt hit their targets
4. When the Luftwaffe bombers hit their targets they couldnt destroy their targets.

Again, not isolated to Luftwaffe. The RAF bomber command suffered from the same problem. Their raids on German cities early in the war had almost zero impact.
After the David Bensusan-Butt Report; (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butt_Report) the British realized that area bombing, i.e bombing an entire city with its civilian population, was the only way to actuallly produce any meaningful damage to any strategic target.

>Ensure strict bomber escort discipline with fighters
They did this. It's a reasons why Luftwaffe lost the battle. Tying fighters to the bombers stripped them of their tactical ability

>>17912799
>Deploy U-boats to blockade Channel approaches
The thing with ww2 submarines is that they're not like modern submarines; they cannot stay submerged, nor do they have the same manouverability when submerged. In fact ww2 submarines were incredibly slow when submerged and thus extremely difficult to retreat once detected.

This is the reason why Germany never deployed submarines near the Britih coast, near any British ports, nor near the English channel.
Instead the Germans sent their submarines far into the Atlantic ocean, specifically to make it difficult for the British to find them.
If you put submarines in the channel, the British knows exactly where to look, and the submarines will be easy prey.

>Lay mines at key British ports to disrupt RAF supply lines
And what German surface navy will accomplish this?

>After that in 1941, delayed Operation Sea Lion has a ~35–40% of being feasible and a ~25–30% success rate.
I'd say Sea Lion still has a roughly 0% success rate because you still have no way to get an army across to England and no way to sustain an overseas campaign, and no way to prevent the Royal Navy from destroying everything.

And this is assuming, with a lot of magic and make-belief, that the RAF is somehow "defeated".

>>17910801 (OP)
Not declaring war on the US

>>17913063
You are wrong

>AAAH WE ARE IN A WAR OF GOOD AND EVIL BETWEEN HUMANITY AND THE BOLSHEVIKS, ONLY THROUGH US CAN EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION SURVIVE AGAINST THE DEMONIC EASTERN HORDES'
>Signs pact with the bolsheviks, alienating everyone else
It was over from the start

>>17910801 (OP)
He couldn’t