If Hitler would not have been so obsessed with slaughtering the Jews, could Germany have won the war?

Answer 1

Hmmm, very interesting question. I would say no though. IF you combined no holocaust WITH no Russian invasion you might have something. The Russians really didn't care until Hitler threatened them. So with Russia out of it and the US not yet in, Htler would have had a good chance. Especially if you take a portion of the 10 million people (the men) he killed added to all the people it took to run the killing machine and put them in the fighting part of the war....

Answer 2

No I do not think that Germany could have won the war. The issue is that while Hitler did have a large army the one that fought against him was much larger. The U.S. England, Russia all were in the fight against Hitler. While I do think the war may have lasted a little longer we would have still won. This is because of the invention of the atomic bomb if for no other reason. We could have sent one to Japan and one to Germany. While it is true we did not have any more bombs after the two that were dropped on Japan we could have made more in 6 months. So that is why I think we would have won the war anyway. Yet there would have been larger number of people killed. Well actually the guy above me and Velvet are both kind of right. The allies were trying to bomb military targets and missed and ended up bombing some German cities. Hitler was bombing London in the hopes that it would destroy the moral of the English people. The facts seem to suggest that Hitler never originally meant to bomb London originally. It was due to a mess up in the German air force trying to take out English air bases so that Hitler could gain control of the English Channel. Some missed their targets and bombed London, then the English bombed a German city and it was on. Hitler realized that he could not get control of the Channel so Operation sea lion had to be aborted. He thought that by bombing London he could cause moral to fall in England and the people would put pressure on the English government to make peace with Germany. Needless to say that did not work.

Answer 3

It's difficult to say. Hitler made many strategic mistakes in the war, but I don't know how well known his "final solution" was in the West until 1945. It could have contributed to losing any hope of finding allies within the countries he occupied, but it may not of made any difference. It definitely colored his decision to invade the USSR, people he considered sub-human. That, coupled with declaring war on America the day after Pearl Harbor, pretty much sealed his fate. If he hadn't been so brutal with everyone he felt was inferior, he might have been able to negotiate a peace earlier in the war before Europe was ruined.

Answer 4

Possible, though unlikely.

If Hitler would have finished off England before his premature launch of operation Barbarossa he might have stood a chance.
If he conquered england and then gave ample time for his armies to regroup and restrengthen for immensely consuming soviet offensive.
Also if he was not so stubborn when Stalingrad turned sour. He kept throwing valuable resources at a lost cause and sent many men to their death and lost many supplies after the soviet victory at Stalingrad.
Also if he would have put much more effort into the production of the ME-262, he could have defended against the British/American air raids easier.
And many other tactical blunders on D-Day and the Ardennes offensive led to the Nazi fall.

I don't think the consumed manpower running the concentration camps could have made much of a difference. The men running the camps were mostly old men and men unfit for combat, obviously why they were not on the Russian front.

Answer 5

There's a lot of IFs; If Hitler would have NOT been so obsessed with the "Jewish solution" and IF he would have stood down and TRUSTED his generals in the field and IF he would have funded the research for JET technology then YES, they may have won or at least fought to a stalemate the allied forces. Let there be no mistake, the German fighting capability man per man is unsurpassed. They were, are and always will be a force to reckon with.

Answer 6

The answer to this is multi-dimensional and complex. Germany could have won the war even with the slaughtering of innocents. To say Hitler's obsession with the jews caused him to lose would grant to much credence to HItler's own view that it was the jews fault that the war had to be, let alone drag out.

The slaughtering of the jews, not to mention the countless others, really began as a systematic public program after Hitler realized that Britain would not surrender. His belief was that since the jews had been excluded from his new germany they would pressure GB and eventually America to never give in to him or accept any peace with him. His attack on the Soviet Union, which was always the first aim of Nazi ideology, had to occur regardless and he said publicly that if we are going to lose this war, and if we cannot acheive our aim against the Soviets, then at least he would eradicate all the jews of Europe in exchange for his belief that it was there fault GB would not surrender. (Maintaining a two front war for Germany then).

The final solution had at that point no bearing, militarily speaking on Allied actions, nor on German plans. No allies went to rescue civilians at the death camps for years, and unfortunately, though they might be used now as a main reason for the allies to fight, it surely was not so at the time. If we believe Hitler, then we could say had he been nice to the jews, he may not have had a war to begin with. Though the persecution of the jews may have lead influential circles in London and New York to pressure the Americans to join and the British not to surrender, the economy war creates along with Anglo-French desire to destroy Germany was most likely suffecient on its own for continued war even after the Fall of Paris.

The reason Germany could have won the war outright regardless of the persecution can be based on a few IFs that would have become FACTS. Militarily speaking Hitler had a seige mentality when it came to Russia with an army of Blitz capabilities. Meaning, HItler would seize territory in order to keep it and defend it as a means in itself to win the war, while his army was really made to cut off the circulation of the enemy and force it to capitulate even if the enemy did not lose all of its capabilities. Army group south's turn towards Baku showed this idea of fighting a long drawn out war, but Germany did not have the manpower or resources to fully fight such a war on two fronts. Many times over Hitler could have attacked the leadership areas of the Soviets but instead chose to take cities with seige value.
Hitler could have also saved himself the trouble of fighting America right away by not declaring war on them and daring them to make a landing. Instead he did the opposite and compounded the matter by trying to defend the entire French coastline! His alliance with Japan served him nothing and the energy in defending the coast would have been much better served destroying a landing once it attempted to break out.
Even with the stranglehold of the allies in 1944, the allies postwar were dared to admit that had the war been able to last a little longer, mass production of the ME262 fighter would have taken American air superiority away immediately. No air power meant more time for Germany to produce heavy equipement such as the improved Panther tanks. At that point a negotiated settlement may have been in the making. (At least in the west). The allies would have never used the Atomic bomb on the European continent, sadly for the Japanese, there alien culture and far away land aided in the moral dilemna there.

Truth be told, Germany also lost the war due to the complete willingness of Stalin to throw waves of Russians at Germany. Without the Red army bleeding it is hard to imagine America losing 200,000 men to take Berlin alone. Slaughtering the jews may have been a sidenote certain circles used to continue the war against Germany after the fall of France but Hitler's own decisions militarily had much more to do with Germany losing the war then Allied actions, let alone the murder of innocents.

Answer 7

No.
1. the main strategical mistake he made was to invade into the USSR, and that was because of the other ideological foundation of nazism-anticommunism- mixed, of course, with considering the Slaves inferior to the "Germanic Race"
2. when the U.S.A. joined the allies at the end of 1941, Gemany's fate was basically decided. And that happened because of the Japanese.
Hitler could not win against the combined powers of UK and colonies, USA and USSR.

Answer 8

Nope, never!!! The extermination of the Jews didn't really have anything to do with Hitler losing WWII, it was mainly his dumb-*** mistake to start a two front war.

Answer 9

"No" Although he was obsessed with the liquidation of the Jews, non-Arian peoples, Dwarfs and the invalid, mentally deranged and retarded, all Catholics and people that rejected Nazism, he took on more then he could chew.
He had his armies in most parts of Europe and North Africa, Italy and Russia.

Answer 10

What are you talking about velvet?

Britain didn't start bombing german cities, Germany started bombing British cities causing the 'Blitz', hitler targeted civilians very early in the war.