Was it ever possible for the Axis Powers to win?

[nc-1701]

In the case of Europe, the Axis had tried a failed campaign into Russia during the Winter. Result? Their supplies ran out, and their troops became bogged down in snowy weather. Had they done so in the Spring, they might've had more success. They also didn't invade England, which let the US and England build up an invasion force. My highschool history teacher once said that had they mobilized, they would've been much more successful. The war could've been prolonged enough that jets came onto the scene -- and possibly nukes. But, Germany was being pinched by two sides.

Japan, on the other hand, had all of its' troops in China and Asia, with the US Navy closing in. The disadvantage that Japan had was that it was on the side of the sea, thus any navy could easily blockade the island nation.

I don't think Japan would've had a chance -- by the end of the war, Japan had been nuked twice, and lost their navy. Germany could have been more successful (assuming that they had invaded England, mobilized, and attacked Russia during a different time of year), atleast until the US focused 100% of its' effort - nukes included - on Germany.

If we suppose that Germany had all of Europe, Africa, Middle East and much of Russia, the US probably would've landed in the south/middle part of Africa, via the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, and used Asia to move troops across.

So, they might've been more successful, but once the US (and maybe other nations) got involved, they would've had a pretty tough time of it.

Actualy the snow didn't give the nazis a problem it was the mud caused by the spring melt that did them in.

people always discuss leadership and tactics etc. I however just look at ecomonics. Look at it this way acoording to the calculations of site I posted earlier the total warmaking industrial capacity of the USA was 40% of the world total Germany and Russia being next in line at about 14% each. Japan getting a measly 3%. Look at it this way in 1941 Americas car industry was eighty (80) times that of Japan.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

I think it may have been possible for Nazi Germany to win, if Britain had surrendered in 1940 (not unlikely). Germany could set up some kind of 'Vichy Britain' and then attacked Russia in 1941.

The key thing is that with Britain out of the war, America would probably be much less interested in getting involved, which would mean no lend lease for the Russians - without the boost they got from the American supplies the Red Army may have collapsed during the initial invasion, or during 1942.

Of course the question remains weather or not Hitler could resist declaring war on America just cos he could.

Clearly Churchill was determined to defeat Hitler. Let’s say that Germany spent the later half of ’40 and early ’41 concentrating on the British Mediterranean: could the loss of Malta and Egypt have cost Churchill his position and brought someone else to power in the UK who would be more receptive to peace with the Nazis?

It is possible I think, and then this scenario might play out similarly to what I just mentioned above.

 

[Case]

The general consensus on this thread seems to be that Germany could have only won if everything went right for them and the Allies made more mistakes than they did historically.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Yes...as I said on the first page, I don't think there was any realistic way that Germany could defeat the UK, USSR and USA.

The scenario I posted above is the best one I can think of, but that depends on keeping the USA out of the war in Europe (a bit of a cop out) and has 3 big ifs:

a-Britain surrendering
b-Germany being able to subdue the Russian army even without lend lease
c-Hitler not delcaring war on America (though without Britain who knows how involved they would have gotten)

Funny how we never get any 'how could the allies have won faster?' threads isn't it?

 

[Riesstiu IV]

Funny how we never get any 'how could the allies have won faster?' threads isn't it?

Let Hitler into art school.

 

[Dell19]

France building the Maginot line across their entire border so that it could not be bipassed or investing the money in the military elsewhere.

 

[Case]

Funny how we never get any 'how could the allies have won faster?' threads isn't it?

Yeah, that is a bit of a worry. Seeing as the utter defeat of Germany and Japan may have been the best thing to happen in the 20th century the interest in how these barbaric countrys could have won is rather odd.

 

[neutrino]

France building the Maginot line across their entire border so that it could not be bipassed or investing the money in the military elsewhere.

the Maginot Line was incomplete in 1940, although it was still a formidable barrier.

i think the problem was not that the idea of Maginot Line was itself bad: the intention was to fortify the Franco-German border so that the Germans would have to detour into the Low Countries. so, it worked.

instead, the problem was that once the Germans started the 1940 Western campaign through the Low Countries, the French and the British committed their best forces there, expecting this as the main German blow. but the main German blow came through the lightly defended Ardennes a few days later, which meant that the Allies got suckered! by the time the Germans captured Sedan and dashed towards northern French coast, the Allies had no mobile reserves left to stop the Germans.

 

[Luckymoose]

Yeah, that is a bit of a worry. Seeing as the utter defeat of Germany and Japan may have been the best thing to happen in the 20th century the interest in how these barbaric countrys could have won is rather odd.

Actually no. Defeating them led to the creation of new Countries which led to future wars. Over all peace would have been better. Neither country is barbaric. They had thier reasons. And F.D.R is the worst preisdent ever, he knew about pearl harbor and lied to the american population to get reelected by saying he would never send there boys over seas. So he used Japan so he could fight his war like he wanted. Truth is, the biggest tyrant fo the entire war is none other than the American President himself.

Freakin Democrats.

 

[Revolutionary]

Actually no. Defeating them led to the creation of new Countries which led to future wars. Over all peace would have been better. Neither country is barbaric. They had thier reasons. And F.D.R is the worst preisdent ever, he knew about pearl harbor and lied to the american population to get reelected by saying he would never send there boys over seas. So he used Japan so he could fight his war like he wanted. Truth is, the biggest tyrant fo the entire war is none other than the American President himself.

Freakin Democrats.

joking? being sarcastic?

or do you seriously believe this?


FDR a bigger tyrant than Stalin or Hitler!

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

I'm also wondering weather that was a sarcastic post...

The destruction of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan is really hard to top in terms of 'good things that happened, 1900-1999'