Here's a good question : if hitler had kept bombarding england with the stukas and the junker bombers, then taken on russia (USSR) could have he won WW2?

I don't think so, remember US was there and it was on the side of England.

---

First look
First Shot
First fill

Its possible, but because he stopped bombing England he basically gave in.

Germany screwed themselves with the inability to produce mass numbers of simple yet effective weapons. IE the Sherman tank. Allies made it a numbers war (costly albeit). However if he would have kept bombing England it would have been a different story regardless of the numbers.

Again I agree, another useful, but late into production and unhelpful by the time it was introduce, was the Sturmgewehr or if translated literally to English the Assault Rifle. At first Hitler decided all his troops needed were heavy machine guns and rifles, but when he was handed a Sturmgewehr at some inspection (or something I can't quite remember where it was) he 'fell in love' with it and ordered it into production. At that point it was much to late to make a difference.

Fortunately for us, Hitler made to many mistakes, such as attacking the Russians, which insured his failure. Another strategic mistake he made was attacking to many people and one time, by going to war with the allies he was unable to keep a strong defense and offense on all of the fronts, where as the allies had the ability to put Americans here, the British there, and the Russians on their front. This was much more effective than just Germany on all of these other fronts and Japan in the Pacific Theatre.

The moral of the story is, if your a German dictator don't make enemies with everyone and get way to cocky right away.

Yeah, i think he should have continued to bomb british airfields and warplane factories, rather than being obsesed with bombing London. However im also not sure how well the invasion of england would have gone even with air superiority. They did not have proper landing craft for example, with only small barges to use. Surely the British people would have also given fierce a resistance.

Declaring war on America was another bad decision. He had a chance to defeat the russians, but i doubt they could have defeated the US.

Also, had he not declared war on the US, the british would still be using crusader tanks etc, not shermans. (but they would still have 2 contend with the hordes of T-34s in the east).

The Italian attacks on greece etc also lead to many of germanyz resources being diverted to that theater. . .

He could have defeated america as his troops were more experienced better equipped and there were more but the problem would have been actually getting to america and air superiority would have been a huge problem because they had no aircraft with a long enough range to get to mainland america so as soon as the troops disembarked theyd get cut down by air-ground fire in the whole he could never have won it and he never would have with a bullet in his head.

However your all wrong baout the bombing raids they werent doing enough damage to us or our morale and we had air superiority the main reason they stopped bombing was because of their losses.