Started By
Message

re: Did Germany ever have a real chance of beating the Soviet Union?

Posted on 1/26/26 at 2:58 pm to
Posted by Tridentds
Sugar Land
Member since Aug 2011
23939 posts
Posted on 1/26/26 at 2:58 pm to
They were getting it done but supply lines got too long. Was still manageable but weather crippled them. Losses after that were too heavy. They had a good chance.

Should have finished off GB to start with. That was first mistake and where it went wrong. Major wars on 2 fronts… tough hill to climb.
Posted by Reagan80
Earth
Member since Feb 2023
2330 posts
Posted on 1/26/26 at 2:59 pm to
No they were beaten before the invasion. By not knocking Britain out of the war, they couldn’t focus entirely on the Soviets.
Posted by Riseupfromtherubble
You'll Never Walk Alone
Member since Jun 2011
39995 posts
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:00 pm to
quote:

By not knocking Britain out of the war, they couldn’t focus entirely on the Soviets.


The brits had also cracked the enigma code, unbeknownst to the Germans
Posted by Centinel
Idaho
Member since Sep 2016
45951 posts
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:00 pm to
The US probably would have stayed out of it if Japan hadn't touched our boats, giving Germany a pretty good chance.

You never touch our boats.
Posted by VOR
New Orleans
Member since Apr 2009
68817 posts
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:02 pm to
Hitler grossly under-estimated both Russia and the U.S., and he ignored his generals at crucial times.


I don't think Germany had a realistic chance against the Soviet state...
Posted by ChewyDante
Member since Jan 2007
17198 posts
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:03 pm to
quote:


Hitler’s biggest mistake was believing all his own bullshite. He really thought they could basically take on all of the world all at once and win. He thought the Germans were really that superior.


This is vastly overstated. Hitler sought to avoid war with the West. Hitler gambled that the West would not go to war over Poland. He also sought to avoid conflict with America and to settle with Britain prior to Barbarossa. After Britain's clear refusal to come to terms, the Germans sought to knock the Soviets out in a swift campaign, which Hitler believed would force the British to settle by removing Russia as a potential lifeline to squeeze Germany. Hitler's declaration of war on America, in his mind, was forced on him because the United States was gearing up for entry on there own timeline, just as in WWI. This was not an irrational or unsubstantiated position.

So the notion that Hitler wantonly declared war on the world due to some insane belief in the Germans just being "that superior" is Hollywood and not history.
Posted by BabyTac
Austin, TX
Member since Jun 2008
16659 posts
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:04 pm to
quote:

The U S had everyone scared after the bombs. I think they all wouid concede


I just finished watching Hitler and the Nazi’s: Evil on Trial (Netflix). I’m surprised they never mentioned the bombs. Not what the doc was about but they did reference Pearl Harbor.
Posted by Juan Betanzos
New Orleans
Member since Nov 2005
4177 posts
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:05 pm to
Hitler learned nothing from history (Napoleon) --- wanting too much and not being strategic enough. The Nazis certainly had the equipment and manpower..... but the war plans left a lot to be desired -- hence, many top generals were replaced, some due to insubordination.
Posted by sledgehammer
SWLA
Member since Oct 2020
7182 posts
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:11 pm to
Those arctic convoys to Murmansk were crucial to the SU
Posted by Tiger Prawn
Member since Dec 2016
25840 posts
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:13 pm to
I don't think the Germans ever had a shot at beating the Soviets while they were still fighting in western Europe and Africa. Sure they might have captured Stalingrad and Moscow if they Barbarossa had been launched 3 months sooner, but Hitler was stretching his forces too thin to realistically be able to hold onto the captured Russian territory given the sheer numbers of the Red Army forces.

They were never going to beat the Soviets while fighting a war on 2 fronts and Hitler was too impatient to wait to attack Russia until after the British were knocked out of the war.
Posted by Centinel
Idaho
Member since Sep 2016
45951 posts
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:14 pm to
quote:

Not what the doc was about but they did reference Pearl Harbor.



Like I said, never touch our boats.

Posted by greenbean
USAF Retired - 31 years
Member since Feb 2019
6381 posts
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:15 pm to
They had the same chance of beating the Russians as the south did of beating the union, zero.
Posted by Centinel
Idaho
Member since Sep 2016
45951 posts
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:18 pm to
quote:

as the south did of beating the union, zero.


Oh boy, here we go....

Posted by Rex Feral
Somewhere near Athens
Member since Jan 2014
16595 posts
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:18 pm to
quote:

Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.


Senator Blutarsky?
Posted by LSURussian
Member since Feb 2005
134899 posts
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:19 pm to
quote:

I just finished watching Hitler and the Nazi’s: Evil on Trial (Netflix). I’m surprised they never mentioned the bombs.
The European theater war was already over when the bombs were dropped on Japan.
Posted by Canon951
Member since May 2020
615 posts
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:21 pm to
I think it was over by winter of 1941, the Germans just didn't know it yet.
Posted by Pax Regis
Alabama
Member since Sep 2007
15274 posts
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:21 pm to
quote:

They had the same chance of beating the Russians as the south did of beating the union, zero.


Oh you sumbich.
Posted by lsugradman
Member since Sep 2003
8970 posts
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:22 pm to
Excuse my ignorance on this. Did Japan confer w Germany on their Pearl Harbor plans or was that a unilateral decision? Bc that decision was the start of Germany getting their sht pushed in.
Posted by sledgehammer
SWLA
Member since Oct 2020
7182 posts
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:23 pm to
quote:

Should have finished off GB to start with. That was first mistake and where it went wrong
That was never going to happen. The Luftwaffe was getting murdered in the Battle of Britain and they lacked naval superiority. Convoys were still reaching GB at this time even though many tons of shipping went to the bottom of the sea. Besides, invading and conquering a massive island nation like GB would’ve been near impossible.
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
115385 posts
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:24 pm to
Yes.

If they would have a) captured/killed the British at Dunkirk; and, b) kept bombing the RAF fields instead of civilian areas, they could have knocked Britain out of the war (including its Navy and its colonies [which were important in the Mediterranean and in the Pacific]).

This would have greatly hampered Lend Lease to the USSR, which likely would have made Barbarossa move even faster, but without having to be concerned at all with Western Europe or the Med, they would not have had the personnel and logistical issues that dragged it into the Winter. At a minimum, they would have been much better equipped to weather the Winter and restart the advance in the Spring.
This post was edited on 1/26/26 at 7:15 pm
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 7Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram