How Axis could have won the war!

[cephyn]

Originally posted by cataclysm
what if USSR joint the Axis?

They almost certainly would have if Germany hadn't attacked them. They had a non-agression pact with Germany and Japan. Japan never considered unconditional surrender until Russia broke the pact by declaring war on them a couple days after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bomb didn't faze the Japanese military -- they would have fought it out if need be. What they did want was Russia to mediate a conditional peace between Japan and the US. Russia stabbed them in the backs after having gone silent on diplomatic channels. Russia attacked because they were afraid the bomb would force Japan to surrender before they could enter the war against Japan -- doing so was necessary for Stalin to get some land he was promised (if he entered hte war after Berlin fell) at the Yalta Conference.

 

[knowltok]

Was Japan defeated as of the evening of Dec. 7, 1941? Did their failure to completely wipe out the US carrier/fleet make the US victory a forgone conclusion? Was Japan ever actually 'in the game'?

Yes. It is my belief that they would have been defeated even if the carriers had been there. It would have taken longer, but the U.S. just had too much industrial might for the Japanese to overcome.

How big of an impact on the outcome did Midway truly have?

In terms of shortening the Pacific war it was huge. Overall though, the US could have been defeated and they still would have won, just much later.

What would have happened...eventually....had Barbarosa not happened?

Hitler would have won. He could have strangled Britain if all the effort put into Russia had been put into Subs and Aircraft.
Germany then would likely have beaten Russia. Russia was aided immensely by the supplies sent by the U.S. If Britain was out of the war the U.S. wouldn't have sent as much, nor would as much have gotten through.
Russia was also aided (though they don't want to admit it) by the other fronts that Germany was fighting on. Even the North African campaign drew off some of the Axis resources. Sicily and Italy drew off more, and the Normandy invasion drew of massive numbers of troops.

Would the US have become involved without Pearl Harbor?

Maybe. It depends on how long Britain held out. As long as Britain was still fighting FDR was doing everything he could to help them and get the US in the war. The other thing to consider is that the Japanese assumed that the US would go to war with them if they wnet to war with England and the Dutch to gain the resources of the south pacific. This may well have been correct, but then again, maybe not.

What if Germany had been able to force an unconditional surrender of Britain prior to either the US or USSR becoming involved?

The Germany would have won. You would have two superpowers staring at each other across the Atlantic Ocean. This assumes that the Americans defeat the Japanese while Germany defeats Russia.

Or, what if Germany had won, despite attacking the USSR and the USA becoming involved? In other words, what if Hitler had been able to defeat Britain, the USA and the USSR?

A rather ugly world had Germany won. One thing is for sure, the Middle East wouldn't be a hot spot. It is likely though that at somepoint the Germans would have reached a limit to their ability to hold onto the world. Depends on how many people they could have recruited from conquered nations.

 

[redtom]

This is to answer "What if the USSR joined the Axis powers?". This couldn't have happened as both Germany and USSR were both planning an invasion of each other territories.

During the Non-Aggression Pact, both nations were distinctly aggressive to other nations in central and eastern Europe. Both had masses of forces on their borders. The problem is whether the USSR's forces were defending or getting ready to attack and whether the "Five Year Plan", Stalin ordered were planning for an attack on Eastern Europe. This has led to speculation, by revisionist historians that Stalin may have played Hitler for an early war.

The even more extreme view was Stalin started war on Germany first. I do not even accept that because:

1. Theres simply no historical evidence. History based on facts not speculation.

2. Why would Stalin claim war before his 5 year plans had ended? This makes no sense.

To counter this argument:

Why was Stalin's airforce on the frontline before the war?

Anyway, to sum up Stalin had no interest in helping the enemy.

I can recommend a good book, if your interested: What if? U can find on Amazon.com

 

[cataclysm]

Originally posted by knowltok


Yes. It is my belief that they would have been defeated even if the carriers had been there. It would have taken longer, but the U.S. just had too much industrial might for the Japanese to overcome.

I wouldn't say they would be defeated. But I will say MOST LIKELY they would be defeated

 

[Hitro]

The goal of Hitler's war was the Soviet Union nothing else!!!
So there are no options like "if the USSR had joined the axis" or "if Hitler hadn't attacked Russia". The war in the west was purely strategic, the real purpose was the war for "Lebensraum" in the east against the "inferior" slavs. Hitler had planned to crush Fance and Britain to prevent a two-front war like WWI but after failing to invade England he didn't want to wait for "his" war and attacked Russia anyway. At that time the war was already lost for Germany.

 

[cataclysm]

Originally posted by Hitro
The goal of Hitler's war was the Soviet Union nothing else!!!
So there are no options like "if the USSR had joined the axis" or "if Hitler hadn't attacked Russia". The war in the west was purely strategic, the real purpose was the war for "Lebensraum" in the east against the "inferior" slavs. Hitler had planned to crush Fance and Britain to prevent a two-front war like WWI but after failing to invade England he didn't want to wait for "his" war and attacked Russia anyway. At that time the war was already lost for Germany.

Hey, remember this is a What if thread

What if Hitler got hit on the head by seomthing launched something(use your imagnation) in 1940 that made him realized USSR should be a friend not a foe?

 

[Hitro]

What if Hitler would have turned into some kind of Messiah and would today rule the world because everybody loves him?
Imaginable but still awful

 

[knowltok]

I wouldn't say they would be defeated. But I will say MOST LIKELY they would be defeated

We've gone over this before, but obviously there exists in the myriad of possibilities the chance that Japan could have won. I place it at about the same level as the Polish turning back the Germans in '39 and driving to Berlin to force a surrender. I realize that the pacific war was more hard fought and lasted much longer, but I don't believe that the US was ever in any danger of losing it. Japan could only postpone the inevitable. They severely miscalculated the American character thinking that Americans would be stunned and humbled. Instead Americans were outraged and filled with a desire for revenge.

 

[Sayounara]

I didn't like Germany's stradgey on how to invade the USSR. Hitler was too crazy, he should've put all that effort into invading Britain. He probably could beat USSR than with or without Japan's help. Hitler probably didn't realise that Britain had great leaders and they needed to be taken down.
I think Germany's army shouldn't be so seperated, they should've all gained up on Moscow, and focus on one city at a time. That would really weaken the USSR.
I don't exactly know what Japan could've done, I haven't read into their side and why they can't fight USSR.

 

[allhailIndia]

The Axis could never win the war, because the very fact that it got so far would have led to its destruction. It is an old saying in Hindu Mythology that the seeds of its destruction are always present in the demon.

Take Japan for example. The reason they got so far was that theyr were fighting weak poorly trained armies(China) or too few troops,(dutch and Americans in Philippines). they had never proven themselves in a combat with an equal foe and thereby lost badly against the British in Mandalay and the Americans in the Pacific.

Even Germany won more battles by deciet, trickery and sometimes, plain bluff. In fact WW2 started because of Hitler's belief in HIS own invinvibility, not in his Panzers or Messerschmitts. While German generals proved their skills individually, their strategy as a whole was marred by Hitler and his cronies' stupidity to the extreme.

 

[puglover]

Combination of bombing London and declaring war on the USSR.

 

[marshal zhukov]

As far as I know the Nazis could have won the war if they hadn't invaded the Soviet Union, that was their biggest mistake.
Without the invasion of Russia, D-Day would have been a failure, meaning that France would still be under the control of the Germans. The Nazis would probably still be around.
Is hard to imagine thou, Stalin and Hitler sharing a border without going to war. I believe that inevitably the two would have gone to war.

 

[marshal zhukov]

Originally posted by knowltok



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if Germany had been able to force an unconditional surrender of Britain prior to either the US or USSR becoming involved?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Germany would have won. You would have two superpowers staring at each other across the Atlantic Ocean. This assumes that the Americans defeat the Japanese while Germany defeats Russia.

I think you hugely underestimating the British capacity to fight.
Unconditional surrender of the British would have required a land invasion of the island, they wouldn't surrender otherwise.
The land invasion of Britain would have required an incredible amount of resources from Germany, not to mention that the battles fought in the island would have been costly, bloody, and maybe lenghty.
All that would have forced Hitler to postpone the invasion of Russia by at least one year. After the cancellation of Operation Sea Lion, it took Germany one year to prepare the invasion of Russia, imagine how long it would take Hitler to prepare Barbarrosa had the costly invasion of England occurred.
The modernization, both in equipment and in tactics, of the Red Army was under way at the time of the invasion. If Hitler had given just another year for Red Army, he would have faced a much tougher, and much better lead enemy.
In that case, Hitler probably wouldn't have reached Leningrad or gotten so close to Moscow.
Remember that the Russians learned a lot from the Finnish War.

 

[Sayounara]

Should've attack Russia right after they took France I say attack on May 20th 1940

 

[insurgent]

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Hitler did a million things that undermined the Nazi and German war effort.

... and thank God for that...

As you said, Vrylakas, Hitler and the Nazis were the main problems for the Germans.
First of all, the Germans could have, as you said, treated the civilian humanely. There's no doubt that the hundreds of thousands of Russian partisans behind German lines would have had a much harder time, had it not been for the brutal oppression by the Germans.
Secondly, the military could have be prioritised differently. The SS was prioritised, and in reality, this and the Nazi bureaucracy was a great inhibition to the Wehrmacht. The best material was sent to SS units that often were less organised and less trained (although this wasn't usually so) troups, instead of being the intended elite of "Aryans". All the resources which were poured into the SS and different militant and paramilitary branches of the Nazi leadeship could have been well spent on the Wehrmacht.
The Blitzkrieg doctrine was ignored in many of the later invasions, as well as Bismarck's warning agains a war on two fronts against both Britain and Russia. This was partly the result of arrogance, and hubris. The Germans meant that since they had won the wars against Poland, Denmark, Norway, Benelux, and France - Germany could take on the rest of the world. They failed to face the fact that most German equipment was out of date by late 1941.
On the grand strategic level, some particular things could have been done (although I don't claim this is a complete list ):
1) After the defeat of France, something should have been done about the problem of the UK. Some kind of peace settlement would be vital. If that wasn't possible, the entire German industry would have to be focused on taking Britain out. The fact that Germany wasn't fully mobilised until 1942 contributed to the defeat in the Battle of Britain. Any action in the East would be unacceptable without peace on the Western Front. A subdued England would easily rise again and become a serious threat with American backing (as happened in the war).
2) Under no circumstances should Hitler have declared war on the US. The US would probably have intervened against Germany anyway, but there was no reason to provoke the worst-case scenario.
3) Had England been defeated by the Summer of 1941 the Germans should have taken out Yugoslavia and Greece and waited with Barbarossa till the Spring of 1942 - Stalin would have continued his purges in the military, and he would obviously not have seen it coming. Soviet Russia would have been more prepared by 1942, the Wehrmacht would have been mobilised fully, and there would have been more Summer months for it to strike. Depending on the success of the invasion, the Brest-Litovsk settlement 1918 should have been re-proposed - Stalin contemplated proposing it when the Germans had destroyed the Kiev pocket. If Moscow had been taken as well as Stalingrad, Leningrad, and the Caucasus, more favourable terms could have been achieved. But most importantly, the war would have to end before the end of the first year. The Russian self-confidence should not have been allowed to rise as well as the industrial production - a quick but limited victory would be better than a longer-lasting war with a potentially larger victory.
4) The peripheral operations should have been kept going. Rommel's corps should have been reinforced as well as the submarine fleet in the Atlantic. It would delay any significant Allied action against mainland Europe for longer time - perhaps time enough to end the war in the East.
5) Hitler should have focused less power around himself, and allowed the officers to run the wars. The Blitzkrieg Doctrine should have been kept in mind in the East: Surprise, limited objectives, concentration of over-whelming force, superior mobility and flexibility, avoiding concentrations of enemy forces, encircling them rather than confronting them, seeking to fulfil military objectives rather than political and economical. If all those things had been remembered before Barbarossa, Fall Blau, and Zitadelle tings would have looked much different.

But there are so many other factors... too many...

BTW, there were more than a hundred thousand Russian Hiwis ('Hilfswillige', 'willing to help') in the German ranks by 1942. The Sixth Army alone depended on more than 70,000 (est.) of them. The number grew significantly later on in the war.

 

[insurgent]

A perhaps more interesting question that deserves a new thread would be: "How could Germany have been stopped before WWII?"