is it possible Hitler could of won ww2 if he didn't open up a second front in Russia or at least prolonged the

Question

war for several more years?

nice chimp a no class ****** and a dumb answer

good job pizzaguy this maynot be pc but hitler did have the superior weapons and troops,ie ss but the us finally overwhelmed them by pure numbers troops and equipment

Answer 1

No, we still would have developed the Atomic Bomb and we simply would have dropped it on Berlin.

Answer 2

Hitler could have won WWII if he had listened to Rommell and his other top generals. Rommell would have been prepared for the Normandy invasion and our assault would have been stopped right then and there. As it is we took heavy casualties, and they were more or less completely unprepared. Rommell suggested that Hitler should guard Normandy but Hitler was an idiot.

Thank God he was an idiot.

And yes, if he hadn't gotten greedy and attacked Russia, there's no way he would have lost. Hitler's army was THE superpower on the globe at the time.

He withstood the entire allied forces, and even gained ground against them. That's nothing to sneeze at.

America would have lost that war if Hitler hadn't made really stupid decisions. If he hadn't lost his mind and started making really boneheaded decisions, and hadn't persecuted the jews and started killing camps, he *might* have been looked at as a great leader in the history books, like Mao is looked at in China or Lenin in Russia.

But of course, he lost his mind and became the world's worst villian of all, mass murderer extraordinaire.

The only wild card is who would have developed the nuclear bomb first. Whoever did that wins the war. Germany was close, and if we hadn't gotten involved, they would have obtained it and caused far worse devastation than the US did against Japan.

Answer 3

Hitler couldn't have postponed invading Russia much longer. He needed Russian oil to run his war machine. If he hadn't invaded Russia, I think the war might actually have been shorter.

I doubt Hitler could have finished off England at all. The Luftwaffe threw everything it had at the Brits during the Battle of Britain (1940) but failed to establish the air supremacy it needed for a successful invasion.

US and Britain established air supremacy soon afterward that they kept until the end of the war, due to better aircraft, better pilots due to higher fuel supplies for training purposes (for US pilots) and radar systems which the Brits had but the Germans didn't for early warning. Once that failed, it was always just a matter of time before the US and Canada joined the war and invaded the European continent.

Answer 4

Yes. Basically, Russia won the war. The majority of the Reich's resources were didicated to fighting on the Eastern Front. The guy that said we'd just drop an A-bomb forgets that we would need air supremacy to accomplish that, and without Operation Barbossa there would have been thousands of extra fighter aircraft, anti aircraft guns, and personnel to fight. So yes, he would have won. Scary thought.

Answer 5

Maybe. I think his bigger blunder was ordering the Luftwaffe to begin attacking English cities instead of military instillations during the "Battle of Brittan". He did this in response to English bombing of Berlin, which was in itself a desperate attempt to divert the attacks on England (it worked, clearly). Prior to that bombing, the Luftwaffe were slowly overwhelming the RAF and destroying their ability to maintain the fight. They would have had total control of English airspace (and England would have had to capitulate) in a rather short time. But, Hitler's megalomania got the better of him (as it did at Stalingrad), and he ordered the change of focus, which allowed the RAF to regroup and fend off the attacks until the weather changed, making further Luftwaffe sorties impossible until the following year, by which time the US was already involved.

If Germany had gained control of England at that time, the U.S. would have had no place to stage the invasion of Europe. No D-day, no western front for Germany, total victory much more likely on the eastern front.

EDIT:

The British disagree with you, you_been_schooled:

"Hitler had already made one bad mistake, when he'd switched his tactic to focus on the bombing of British cities, just at the time when HE WAS WINNING (emphasis added) the air battle over England."

Answer 6

His violation of the non-aggression pact(with Russia) was the first major blunder.........His fatal blunder was in declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor.He could have used the fact that Japan didn't break diplomat ties until after the attack began to nullify their treaty with them and refused to declare war on the US.Consider the fact Germany didn't lose any major battles until US forces(and aid to Russia) entered the war.

Answer 7

The vast industrial power of the Soviet Union was second only to the US. Hitler was not about to let the Soviets build tanks and armaments knowing that the Soviets were the true enemies of German national socialism, and that they would attack at the first opportunity

Answer 8

Yes that was a major loss for Hitler on two counts. One, his forces were divided and he lost a lot of people and two, he made a powerful enemy.

Answer 9

Yes or if Japan hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor.

Answer 10

Yes, but his dilema was getting to the oil in the Russian controlled territory to fuel the war machine. He was forced to do so to get to the oil rich ares near the Caspian to fuel his war machine.

Answer 11

Yes, if he would have left Russia alone for the time being, He would have conquered England and if Japan had not bombed us, I doubt if we would have gotten involved. He would control Europe and would have wiped out Russia after taking over England.