Was there any way for the Nazis to have won?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Indeed.  Stronger-than-expected resistance in Greece and Yugoslavia (I believe were the two) pushed back the timetable a by over a month.

Not just that, tho that didn't help.  The spring rains lasted longer than normal.  Even if the trouble in the Balkans hadn't occurred, the state of the Russian roads would have kept Barbarossa from starting as scheduled.  However, it probably wouldn't have been a five-week delay.  However, even with an earlier start, the initial surge would not have been able to go much further than it did because of logistical problems.  What an earlier start date would have allowed would have been the chance for a second surge before winter.

[SPC]

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.

[Hans-im-Glück]

Only with the atomic bomb would Germany have won the war. Germany would have been too small to control everything and will be losing the time after the war.

[Dr. Cynic]

The easiest way for the Nazis to have come out victorious would've been to have not invaded the Soviet Union until after they defeated Great Britain.

The other way would've been to never join Japan against the United States. Germany could always fight well on one front, but whenever Hitler divided the forces, it was over. The United States may never have declared war on Germany if Hitler hadn't done so first. Even then however, America fighting Japan and Germany say without Britain (Say they've been defeated already) and without the Soviet Union (Because Hitler has decided to save them for last), America would be very hard pressed to win WWII. It certainly would've taken longer. One has to believe that America's industrial and manpower could've eventually overcame everything, but without the assistance of Britain and the Soviets, it may have been close to impossible to win the war.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The easiest way for the Nazis to have come out victorious would've been to have not invaded the Soviet Union until after they defeated Great Britain.

Not really. While Stalin was not thinking of invading Germany in 1941, doing so in 1943 or 1944 was certainly a possibility had Barbarossa not happened.  Plus I see no chance of Germany defeating Britain after 1940 unless they had developed the atomic bomb first.  Maybe drag things out long enough for Britain to consider some sort of peace terms.

By 1941, a successful Barbarossa was needed if Germany was to have any hope of bringing Britain to the armistice table.  That said, delaying Barbarossa until 1942 may well have been a good thing for the Nazis.

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

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.

[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.

[Bo]

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.

[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.

[Bo]

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.

Maybe you're right, but I think that if Hitler would have focused on protecting the territory that he already held and expanding his military to do that, then Stalin might have waited several years to build up his own military before invading. In those several years, Hitler could have built a nuke if the U.S. didn't jump into the conflict.

[J. J.]

The easiest way for the Nazis to have come out victorious would've been to have not invaded the Soviet Union until after they defeated Great Britain.

I think this was the key.  First, take Western Europe.

[The Mikado]

If the Japanese had launched a full-fledged invasion of Siberia (and yes, I'm aware of the reasons why they didn't), the Soviet position would've become close to hopeless.  Say, making December 7th, 1941 a sneak attack on Vladivostok rather than Honolulu.

[??????????]

If the Japanese had launched a full-fledged invasion of Siberia (and yes, I'm aware of the reasons why they didn't), the Soviet position would've become close to hopeless.  Say, making December 7th, 1941 a sneak attack on Vladivostok rather than Honolulu.

Probably even a bigger suicide then going after the US.

A Nazi v Soviet showdown was inevitable. Any "peace" that existed for a short period of time was very tense and fragile. Both sides were intent on a showdown and nothing would have stopped it. Some things in history are cut and dry and this is one of them, IMHO. The Nazis could have conquered the UK if they had won the Battle of Britain but I don't know what conquering the UK would have done for the long term situation.

[bgwah]

The most obvious answers also seem a lot less realistic, but they obviously include obtaining nuclear weapons... Additionally, getting rid of Hitler and replacing him with someone less insane (July 1944 was too late, it would've needed to be mid 1943 at the very latest IMO), but then I suppose we risk violating the question of there being a way for the Nazis to win, not just Germany in general...

Quite a bit has already been said, but:
-Delay Barbarossa as long as possible
-Take Malta instead of Crete
-Give Rommel what he needed to take Egypt
-Scrap the London Blitz and hit factories, ports, and airstrips in the UK instead
-Not joining Japan in declaring war on the United States.
-Japan's move into SE Asia certainly didn't help Germany. The USSR was keeping a lot of troops in the Russian Far East in case Japan invaded--once they knew it wouldn't happen they were able to provide much needed reinforcements to Stalingrad, Moscow, etc...

And I think one of the biggest things I haven't seen mentioned yet: The Germans were actually greeted as liberators initially in parts of the USSR, such as Ukraine. The Germans should have made as many friends as possible in the occupied USSR.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And I think one of the biggest things I haven't seen mentioned yet: The Germans were actually greeted as liberators initially in parts of the USSR, such as Ukraine. The Germans should have made as many friends as possible in the occupied USSR.

That might have helped the Germans, but it wouldn't have helped the Nazis, since a regime willing to be friendly to East Slavic untermenschen wouldn't have been Nazi at all.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

-Scrap the London Blitz and hit factories, ports, and airstrips in the UK instead

The second half was done anyway; a lot of industrial centres were (proportionately) hit far harder than London, those in the Midlands (where a lot of the munitions industry was concentrated) especially. And London itself was an obvious target for large-scale bombing as the largest port in the country and a major centre of light industry.

[bgwah]

And I think one of the biggest things I haven't seen mentioned yet: The Germans were actually greeted as liberators initially in parts of the USSR, such as Ukraine. The Germans should have made as many friends as possible in the occupied USSR.

That might have helped the Germans, but it wouldn't have helped the Nazis, since a regime willing to be friendly to East Slavic untermenschen wouldn't have been Nazi at all.

It wouldn't have had to be a permanent alliance, only long enough to win the war. It could have been like a treaty with the Native Americans--in force as long as it benefited the whites and out the door once the opportunity presented itself for the next phase of genocide.