Was there any way for the Nazis to have won?

[Psychic Octopus]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It never would have worked out in the end. The ideological disparity was so large, and so fierce, that war was inevitable if not hard to avoid. Hitler desired Soviet land for his "living space." That makes it quite hard for any meaningful alliance to be formed, let alone a true nonagression pact.

[Psychic Octopus]

Hitler and Stalin were both oppressive genocidal tyrants. That's enough common ground. And if Hitler really wanted to conquer the U.S.S.R., he should have invaded a month or two before he actually did. That way, he could have reached and conquered Moscow before winter-time.

Both of them being "genocidal tyrants" would not ensure peaceful cooperation. Hitler was the standard-bearer of Fascism, Stalin of Communism. Both had ambitions that went directly against the other's beliefs. I fail to see how what you are investing your thought would be possible in the long run, and not just delay Germany's defeat by Russia.

I read a scenario posed in a book where Hitler delays the Barbarossa plan until he controls the Middle Eastern oil fields via an invasion from Vichy-controlled Syria.

Yeah, I've read a similar scenario. In it, he opts for invading Turkey and the Middle East instead. I don't think it really would've worked in the long run, since it would have overextended his forces.

[Psychic Octopus]

However, if Turkey had joined the Axis, it might well have worked.  Fortunately, he Turks were not of a mind to resurrect the Ottoman Empire in the 1940, or even to form a pan-Turkic government.  Imagine if you will a Nazi-style Turkey out for reconquest and a second Armenian Genocide.  At the very least, the Allies would lose the use of Middle East oil for several years.

True, but that would have to have a much more successful German diplomatic success and/or Allied diplomatic failure. Inonu wanted to keep Turkey out of war for as long as he could.

[Psychic Octopus]

Hitler and Stalin were both oppressive genocidal tyrants. That's enough common ground. And if Hitler really wanted to conquer the U.S.S.R., he should have invaded a month or two before he actually did. That way, he could have reached and conquered Moscow before winter-time.

Both of them being "genocidal tyrants" would not ensure peaceful cooperation. Hitler was the standard-bearer of Fascism, Stalin of Communism. Both had ambitions that went directly against the other's beliefs. I fail to see how what you are investing your thought would be possible in the long run, and not just delay Germany's defeat by Russia.

I read a scenario posed in a book where Hitler delays the Barbarossa plan until he controls the Middle Eastern oil fields via an invasion from Vichy-controlled Syria.

Yeah, I've read a similar scenario. In it, he opts for invading Turkey and the Middle East instead. I don't think it really would've worked in the long run, since it would have overextended his forces.

Well, my point was that Hitler should have avoided confrontation with the U.S.S.R. and just focused on protecting the territory that he already held from a possible future Soviet attack, instead of invading the U.S.S.R. and stretching out his forces. Similar to what Napoleon should have done 125 years before that. I agree with you about the Middle East. Finally, instead of killing Jews, Hitler should have encouraged Jews to immigrate to Germany and used Jewish scientists to help build a nuke faster. Many of the scientists in the Manhattan Project were European Jews. Had Hitler not been such an anti-Semitic genocidal manic, some of those Jews might have been willing to work for Germany instead of the U.S. Had Germany build a nuke before being defeated or coming close to defeat, then the Nazi regime could have lasted a very long time.

I agree, he should have avoided confrontation with the USSR for as long as he could, but I find it unlikely that he could've sustained cordial relations for much longer.