why they are defeated in WW2

Simple...

They fought against UK, US and Sovjets.

They tried to controll France and Norway where the inhabitants had a strong resistance.

Even if they had won... It would have never been possible for them to hold all the occupied countries.

What they should have done to achieve a victory?

1) Not occupiedn Belgium --> UK not to war

2) After blitzing France not to occupy them but to get rid of the Versailles treaty and make France a "plus / minus" indiendend state again that is connected "freindly" to Germany.

3) Not to follow Mussolinis silly plan to controll all the mediterrane again (makes truouble with UK too)

4) Now when wverything is secure in the West, they might have a chanse to get controll over Western Sovjetunion...

I'm not sure if you deliberatley meant it pi8ch, but that post was an awfully fitting reply.

First, you should have done a little searching because I bet almost half the threads in this forum are WW2 related.

1. Japan dragged America into war
2. Germany switched bombing targets from military and air fore to civilian during 1940 bombing of England.
3. Germany switched troops from Army Group Center to Army Group South and delayed attack of Moscow.
4. The Allies broke Axis codes.
5. Italy dragged Germany into conflicts it wanted to delay.
6. Italy failed to conquer Greece, which made Germany send trops and have to wait to conquer Greece before attacking Russia.

I think you have your world wars mixed up pi8ch. The British had been at war with the Germans for about 9 months and had the BEF waiting in France before the Germans attacked Belgium.
1) Not crushing the BEF at Dunkirk
2) Not putting more effort into actually capturing Malta and Egypt
3) Delayed attack of Moscow
4) Not allowing 6th Army to break out from Stalingrad.
5) Should never had the battle of Kursk. Should have kept his strong armour as reserve.
After Kursk it was all one way traffic. Last but definitely not least:
6) Hitler thinking himself supreme warlord and not listening to his brilliant generals. Also Goring was useless at his job of C in C Luftwaffe.
I think one of the biggest falacies of the war is Hitler's decision to intervene in the Balkans. I agree that this delayed his attack on Russia and therefore altered the outcome of the war. But the alternative would have been a British (and later on American) presence in that part of Europe threatening his oil suppies and souther flank in Eastern Europe.

I think rilnator pretty much sums it up.

I would argue however that invading the USSR in itself was a mistake. Even if they took moscow I don't see them winning the war against a country who's industrial base was still so out of the enemy's hands.

The main reason why UK moved to war against Germany was:

- One day they realized that Hitler wouldn't stop occupiing Eruope behind the channel

- Japan forced Amierica into war.. ok ... But German U-Boote torpeded US ships who brought materila to the UK!

It was the Axis's "shot-in-the-head" when they forced UK and with them US into the war....

But as i said: I think it was invetiable that they lost!

Becuase they things they wanted were opposing UK / US anyway

The Romans could give the occupied cuontys peace and civilization.. What could the Axis give their occupied country? nothing! So why this occupation should have worked?

Is there any dicator in histroy who could hold together an war-occupated Imperium for long?

The Empire of Alexander the great went down after his dead, the EMpire of Dshingis Kahn went down after his dead...

None of those empires lasted more thatn a couple of Generations...

I think Moscow was important because it was an important rail and communication hub with plenty of undustry as well as their capital- how many countries in history have fought on sucessfully after losing their capital?

Originally posted by pi8ch


Is there any dicator in histroy who could hold together an war-occupated Imperium for long?

The Empire of Alexander the great went down after his dead, the EMpire of Dshingis Kahn went down after his dead...

None of those empires lasted more thatn a couple of Generations...

well let us check ur points, acctually the occupied known world worked perfectly undre alexanders rule.....resistance movemnts didnt divided his empire at death........it was his generals who divided it for themselfs.

the empire of genghis khan didnt collapsed, it was divided to his sons, who continued their control for many many more years.

oh and england declared war on germany after the invasion of poland, no belgum.......

Originally posted by pi8ch
The Empire of Alexander the great went down after his dead, the EMpire of Dshingis Kahn went down after his dead...

None of those empires lasted more thatn a couple of Generations... The empire of Genghis Khan didn't go down with his death... In fact, decades after his death, the Mongols under the leadership of Mongke, Khubilai and Hulagu (all brothers, sons of Tolui, and grandsons of GK) went on to conquer Song China, Iran and Mesopotamia. Attacks were also executed on India, Turkey, Syria, Japan, Burma and Java, not to mention others. The greatest Mongol expansions took place and were consolidated during the time of his successors.

GK forged the military machine, and his successors used it.

The Mongols, as a conceivable threat, lasted until the middle days of the Qing dynasty of China, about the mid-18th century, when they're finally subjugated by the Manchus.

500-600 years are not a couple of decades...

I think Moscow was important because it was an important rail and communication hub with plenty of undustry as well as their capital- how many countries in history have fought on sucessfully after losing their capital?

Russia did... for two times at least.

Originally posted by pi8ch

Even if they had won... It would have never been possible for them to hold all the occupied countries.

What they should have done to achieve a victory?

1) Not occupiedn Belgium --> UK not to war

2) After blitzing France not to occupy them but to get rid of the Versailles treaty and make France a "plus / minus" indiendend state again that is connected "freindly" to Germany.



If the nazis had won they would have kept all occupied territories, just because they were not afraid to use brutal tactics, neither were they afraid to' make 'ethnic cleansing wherever they judged necessary.
Revolts would have ended in bloodshed and in hangings.
Nationalistic movements would be unsuccessful and suicidal.

Hitler was crazy and became general and Germany fell from There.
Japan fell because of a non-aggresion pact with the Soviets and inside they attack USA instead...

The simple reason is poor leadership.
Germany-A Right wing, slightly insane hate-monger, pretending to be a General:p

Italy- A tin pot dictator pretending to be Caesar:lol:

Japan-Well the generals were bickering most of the time to decide who was in charge.:rolleyes: