Welcome to History!
This community is dedicated to sharing and discussing fascinating historical facts from all periods and regions.
Rules:
NOTE WELL: Personal attacks and insults will not be tolerated. Stick to talking about the historical topic at hand in your comments. Insults and personal attacks will get you an immediate ban for a period of time determined by the moderator who bans you.
Post about history. Ask a question about the past, share a link to an article about something historical, or talk about something related to history that interests you. Please encourage discussion whenever possible.
No memes. No ads. No promos. No spam.
No porn.
We like facts and reliable sources here. Don't spread misinformation or try to change the historical record.
No. Germany had no direct access to oil, that's what the eastern push was for. Not to mention the fact that Stalin had expansionist plans himself. If Germany didn't invade Russia, Russia would've simply invaded Germany sooner or later.
Sure, there are some things that could've helped Germany hold out longer or given them leverage for peace negotiations, but Germany was doomed the second they became a hostile middle entity in an already divided continent.
Agreed. There is no chance they could have won.
One of my favorite memories from undergrad was when our professor gave us a weekend writing assignment that was something to the effect of "How could the Nazis have won WW2?" Queue 8:45 Monday morning and he spends the whole class period tearing into everyone's paper explaining how bad the ideas were.
Basically, he said that "There's no argument to be made for the Nazis winning WW2 that doesn't rely on changing the meaning of the word(s) 'Nazi,' 'won,' and/or 'WW2.'" Barring a miracle for Hitler & co., the outcome was was decided in 1939.
Germany was doomed the second they became a hostile middle entity in an already divided continent.
You'd think they would have learned from the last time they tried that...
100%. Germany's ability to wage blitzkrieg was entirely dependent on oil, which it did not have and could not obtain sufficient amounts from Romania alone. The YouTube channel TikHistory does a great video explaining this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kVo5I0xNRhg&pp=ygUVVGlraGlzdG9yeSBHZXJtYW4gb2ls
This channel is a major spreader of misinformation. Haven’t watched this video so I can’t comment on its specific content but I would not trust anything produced by them.
Tik is a huge source of WWII misinformation? That's funny. I've watched tons of his WWII videos, they are excellent. His day-by-day series on Stalingrad is fantastic. Can you elaborate as to why you believe that? He agrees with the point that oil was a major driver for the invasion of the east. So is that statement misinformation too?
Again, I haven’t watched this video nor done research on its accuracy but I think there is good reason to distrust his analysis.
I did some more research on this channel in response to your comment and it seems the general consensus is that for basic factual events during the war, it’s fairly accurate, but any videos that touch on economics, politics, or religion are wildly off. He believes in a bizarre conspiracy theory that attempts to tie fascism as well as left-wing economic movements into an ancient Christian sect known as Gnosticism. The reasoning and evidence is of a similar quality to those who believe in other secret cabals that influence society, such as the Illuminati, Freemasons, or Jewish conspiracy theories. He’s also made borderline transphobic comments implying that Christian theology is the source of the desire for people to transition their gender presentation which is equally incomprehensible and ahistorical.
For consistently making factually incorrect around these topics despite numerous corrections, he has been listed in the /r/badhistory hall of infamy (yes I know, everyone on Lemmy hates Reddit but it’s the best general overview of his misinformation I could find.) https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/wiki/hall_of_infamy/
If you prefer, here’s also a solid, academically grounded takedown of one of his videos on the religion of fascism, which had many very egregious factual errors. https://youtu.be/XBA6dO6acJc?si=wlbRGamr5QyCCQbX
The response video is in my video a bit too charitable by assuming the mistakes are from ignorance. He’s been corrected numerous times and continues to put out similar videos, and the level of distortion and misinterpretation of his sources seems unlikely to happen by accident.
Thanks for your detailed response. Super weird!! Makes sense that I didn't pick any of that up from his videos on factual events
One of the main drivers for Hitler invading Russia was the desperate need the Nazi state had for money to keep itself solvent. Essentially, the Nazi state was what's known as a kleptocracy, by the time Hitler decided to invade Russia they were more or less insolvent. This was due to the enormous amounts of corruption, embezzling or misappropriating of government funds by the Nazi's themselves. They couldn't pay to import the desperately needed crude oil and other raw materials required for their military industrial complex.
To expand on my previous comment, another driver for the Russian invasion was the sure knowledge that Stalin was planning on invading Germany. Indeed, it's well documented that Stalin was so overcome by suprise by the invasion that he descended into a near catatonic funk for several days.
I remember being taught in A-level history 10+ years ago that on top of this the economy was being fuelled by remilitarisation.
The conclusion we were given was that the bubble could burst if the stuff was made, then not used or needed, so potentialay Poland and France, Russia etc were invaded or in the case of Russia attempted) 5 years early or something to that effect.
I haven't kept up with historical things for a while, and this take might have changed in that time. :)
Hitler could have never won WW2. Germany could have won had they not invaded Russia, finished England off, and if Hitler died in 1940. Hitler was an incompetent military strategist and it was a blessing that he lived as long as he did because whoever would have replaced him would have been far worse an opponent.
Russia probably would have gone after Germany eventually, but without the threat of Allied invasion from England, they could have put up a stronger defense to the west and Poland would be a no-mans that Russia tested for years. Germany would almost certainly attack Russia with a nuke and we would have another world war that probably would have killed us all.
In my opinion, no. The allies would have started dropping atomic weapons on civilian German cities just like they did to Japan. But I think it certainly would have lasted longer.
So if Germany had proceeded with operation Sealion - invasion of Britain- and succeeded, but not with operation Barbarossa - invasion of soviet union, could they not have won? There would be nowhere in Europe for North Americans to muster and USA would likely remain neutral (pre Pearl Harbor). Germany would get British colony oil and only have to defend against Soviet attack.
if Germany had proceeded with operation Sealion - invasion of Britain- and succeeded
But they didn't because it wouldn't have worked.
The battle of Britain was a very close thing and if the Germans had used a slightly different strategy, they could have won. Given that America was not yet in the war and there was an alliance with the Soviet Union, could you explain why the Germans could not have proceeded with operation sealion bearing in mind that the allies did essentially the reverse 4 years later?
Germany didn't have the manpower or the economy for a protracted war. Hence the early reliance on "Blitzkreig" when taking France/Poland/etc...
The moment that first push petered out and it became a slog instead of a blitz, they had already lost. It was just a matter of time.
As someone already mentioned, the Nazi state's entire strategy relied on getting access to Russia's oil reserves before their own ran out. They were on a ticking clock until they could make that happen (which ultimately they didn't).
As for operation Sea Lion giving them British Empire oil, why would you think that taking the island of Britain meant that they automatically take all the colonies of Britain? Conquering an island doesn't mean they get Canada and India (for example). That's not how war works.
Wasn't oil the reason for the North Africa campaign? What if Barbarossa resources went to North Africa instead?
Hitler very much didn't want a third front in the war. If Barbarossa had shifted to North Africa, it would mean fewer troops to deal with the soviets when they inevitably invaded (which Hitler was sure they would do). As it was, North Africa was (at first) an inconvenience to them. Mussolini had invaded North Africa to get his "empire", and when they started taking heavy losses there, it became clear that the Allies could take advantage of it to come up into Europe through Italy and the Mediterranean (which is ultimately what they did). Germany had to deploy Rommel and the Africa Corp. to help the Italians or face fighting a war on three fronts.
In short, Italy was supposed to be Hitler's protection against invasion from the south. But Mussolini was an idiot.
Edited to add: You must remember that at this point in time, North African oil reserves were for the most part undeveloped. As far as Hitler was concerned, it was just a bunch of sand.
Defense requires 4x less troops than offense. Stalin would attack but it would have been years away. The attack wouldn't be to hold Libya but to push through Egypt into Persia which had British Oil.
What was stopping Germany from simply buying oil from Russia?
I'm not a historian, but here goes:
my understanding is that yes, the battle for air superiority over Britain was nearly won by Germany.
However, I don't think Germany was ever close to Naval superiority e.g. the Bismark was sunk within 8 days of its first offensive operation. This was August of 1940, before Britain had won air superiority. Naval superiority is pretty important for landing craft. Oh, in the topic of landing craft how would Germany have actually transported enough troops? Also the geography/topography of southern England is more defendible (cliffs of Dover).
I can't easily find how many Axis troops were being used to defend Europe's Atlantic coast, but it seems that Hitler had imagined using 300,000 as part of his Atlantic Wall, and that the he had fallen short of that. Britain evacuated 338,000 troops from Dunkirk. That number of troops being used defend the cost of southern England is um a lot.
Also, I think you're misrepresenting the alliance with the Soviets. Nazism was inherently anti-communist and Stalin knew that war was a matter of time. By the time the Nazis could have built sufficient landing craft for an invasion Stalin would have finished his purge/reorganization of the Red Army. As soon as those boats got wet the Red Army would have been rolling towards Berlin.
Honestly, I think it would have greatly shortened the war, at the cost of more of Europe being subjected to Soviet domination.