Was it ever possible for the Axis Powers to win?

[pi-r8]

Hi guys, this is my first non-civilization related post here.

It's a simple question, but it may not be simple to answer. At first, it seems utterly rediculous that jjust three countries (plus a few minor allies) would be able to take on the rest of the world and win. Still, they managed to take over a huge portion of Europe, Africa, and the pacific.

Was there a particular bad decision on the part of the Axis (such as the invasion of the USSR) which doomed them? Or some brilliant decision by the Allies? Or were the Axis simply fighting a hopeless war right from the start?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'd say going to war with America. We still had our isolationist tendencies back then, and would have more than likely stayed out of the war had it not been brought to our doorstep.

 

[TheBladeRoden]

Hitler should have invaded Russia first

 

[Verbose]

Hitler should have invaded Russia first

How do you mean? Before going after Poland?

 

[steviejay]

It was highly possible IMHO. They had issues which ultiamtely brought them down, such as having to mop up the Balkans before moving on Russia. If they had simply just focused on Russia and forgot about going after British interests in Greece and the like they could have attacked Russia quicker, could have helped.

Not declaring on America would certainly have helped although IMHO I think FDR would have found a way to declare on Germany sooner or later, an idea such as the book 'Fatherland' would never have happened.

And as the tide started to turn against Germany, Hitler's urge to 'meddle in his Generals affairs' certainly didn't help. If he allowed his troops to retreat, move around, fight a dynamic war rather than simply hold onto everything then things might have been different

I'll also add here that if the 'Africa Korp' got a bit more backing from Hitler and the Italian Army was a bit more compitent, allowing the Suez to be captured, then they would certainly have helped matters.

Suppose I'll ask here as it was mentioned. What was the condition of the Russian Army in 1939? The Purge would have ripped them a new one but could a 1939 German Army have taken them any better than they did in '41? Did waiting those two years help the Germans more? or the Russians?

 

[pi-r8]

I think it's odd that you guys are suggesting that germany would have been better off attacking the USSR SOONER. What did attacking it gain for them, other than a huge, powerful enemy? In my opinion, they would have been better off just focusing all their efforts on defeating britain, while trying to keep the USSR and the USA out of the war until after that.

I still think that the major obsticle they were facing was simply economics, though. All three Axis powers had gone all out before the war to build up their military, and I don't think they could have sustained that for too long.

 

[fing0lfin]

Soon after Germany attaked USSR, Stalin had said:
"Pitty, together we could have ruled the world."

 

[simonnomis]

I think it's odd that you guys are suggesting that germany would have been better off attacking the USSR SOONER. What did attacking it gain for them, other than a huge, powerful enemy? In my opinion, they would have been better off just focusing all their efforts on defeating britain, while trying to keep the USSR and the USA out of the war until after that.

This is all rather abstract though. War has to do with objectives. Conquering the UK was never one of Hitler's main objectives. Living space in the East was. Hence the reason for an invasion of the USSR. Fighting the British would have been undeniably prolonged, like fighting for the sake of fighting, because there was no land bridge. It would have drained both powers for very little reward.

I still think that the major obsticle they were facing was simply economics, though. All three Axis powers had gone all out before the war to build up their military, and I don't think they could have sustained that for too long.

In a prolonged war with nations of similar technological capabilities, the powers with the weakest economy and industrial capacity are the ones that will lose. In a short war, things may turn out differently. However WW2 was not a short war. Germany failed to outproduce even just the British in many fields for much of the war, and the Japanese and Italians were even less industrially capable. Add the superior productive capacity of the USA and USSR to the Allies, and it's obvious there was no way the Axis could win. Blitzkreig was their only hope for victory against the USSR and Hitler's foolish interventions ruined that chance for Germany.

 

[pi-r8]

This is all rather abstract though. War has to do with objectives. Conquering the UK was never one of Hitler's main objectives. Living space in the East was. Hence the reason for an invasion of the USSR. Fighting the British would have been undeniably prolonged, like fighting for the sake of fighting, because there was no land bridge. It would have drained both powers for very little reward.

Well, "Lebensraum" was Hitler's stated objective of the war, but I don't think you can really trust anything that Hitler said. It seems to me like the real objective of the war was always just power and revenge for WWI. It's not like Germany was particularly overcrowded or anything.

From that viewpoint, it makes perfect sense to conquer Britain. Not only was it the nation which was (at the time) the main opponent of Germany and Italy, it was also the nation most responsable for their defeat in WWI. Besides, I don't think it would have necessitated a prolonged fighting. Basically, Germany just needed a way to transport their massive army to England without it getting sunk by the British navy. Once that was done, The British army wouldn't have stood a chance.

In a prolonged war with nations of similar technological capabilities, the powers with the weakest economy and industrial capacity are the ones that will lose. In a short war, things may turn out differently. However WW2 was not a short war. Germany failed to outproduce even just the British in many fields for much of the war, and the Japanese and Italians were even less industrially capable. Add the superior productive capacity of the USA and USSR to the Allies, and it's obvious there was no way the Axis could win. Blitzkreig was their only hope for victory against the USSR and Hitler's foolish interventions ruined that chance for Germany.

This makes a lot of sense, and it's the main reason that I think the war may have been hopeless for the Axis Powers. Still, I can't help but think like a civ player here. If you've got 3 opponents, you go after the weaker one first, while trying to stay on the good side of the other two. Then you use the cities of the one you've conquered to help conquer the next weaker one. Then, once you've conquered both of them, you go on to invade the last remaining opponent.

At any rate, that's how it works in civ4. I don't know if that really works in Real life war though.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Conquering Britain was probably more of a lost cause than conquering Russia. Against the opponents the Axis ended up fighting, they were probably certain to lose eventually. However, if different powers didn't enter the war, things might have been different. A few key victories for the Axis would have made things infinately more difficult, but the industrial capabilities of the United Kingdom, United States, and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics would eventually win.

 

[CartesianFart]

Hitler should have invaded Russia first

He shouldn't invaded at all.I say the worst move that anybody in the history of man ever did after they agree after the partition of Poland.

 

[steviejay]

At the time of invasion Russia were considered weak after the Great Purge under Stalin, as a result Hitler considered the mineral deposits and especially the oil there, as a lot easier a target for Germany than other places, such as the Persian Gulf. If Germany were ever to invade Russia then it should certainly have been sooner rather than later. The longer they waited the longer that Russia would have had not only to rebuild their officer corp, but also modernise their industry, which I believe Stalin was doing right up until Barbarossa

 

[BloodyPepperoni]

My 0.02$
Yes, indeed (or at least avoiding defeat), if Japan and Germany had worked together and followed such a diplomat approach :

By November 1940, Japan, with German pressure, strikes at British colonies in the Pacific, with a German promise of a declaration of war against America should the US defend Britain. Roosevelt, on the eve of the elections, faces a dilemma : will he engage America, against the popular will, with Britain against Japan, who has not attacked the US? If he does, he may very well lose the elections in favor of a more isolationnist candidate. If he doesn't, Britain finds itself waging a war alone on 3 continents against 2 fascist powers. Probably won't last long. UK is thus knocked out of the war. They can now either strangle USSR or declare on the US, but not on both..

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Well, "Lebensraum" was Hitler's stated objective of the war, but I don't think you can really trust anything that Hitler said. It seems to me like the real objective of the war was always just power and revenge for WWI. It's not like Germany was particularly overcrowded or anything.

Hitler wanted a Greater Germany, the biggest country in Eurasia and he was willing to make Germany an outcast and risk destruction in order to do it. He was pretty committed to his goal, and one does not invade Russia for comedic effect.

From that viewpoint, it makes perfect sense to conquer Britain. Not only was it the nation which was (at the time) the main opponent of Germany and Italy, it was also the nation most responsable for their defeat in WWI. Besides, I don't think it would have necessitated a prolonged fighting. Basically, Germany just needed a way to transport their massive army to England without it getting sunk by the British navy. Once that was done, The British army wouldn't have stood a chance.

That's much the same as saying that all Britain needed was five million soldiers and accompanying tanks and munitions and Germany would have been easily defeated. Or all China needed was a few nuclear weapons and billions of £ in order to repel Japan. Britain was very, very well defended and realistically only a super power on the scale of the USA or USSR could crack that shell. With years of preparation.
Germany had nothing that could mount an amphibious operation of that size, even if the Royal Navy and RAF could somehow be taken out of the picture.
Think of 1940 as 1916, and the channel as the trenches. Without completely outnumbering your enemy and cutting off all his supplies an offensive is just not going to work.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Hate so say it, but even if Hitler hadn't attacked Russia, they were still going to have issues.

Here are my reasons for stating this:
-Oil. Germany had no domestic source of oil. Romania and the Caucasus were both necessary to meet the full fuel needs of the war machine. Japan was in worse shape. They needed to make it all the way to South East asia for the closest oil supply and transport it by tanker. They were fighting WWII without the same access to resources that the allies did.
-Production. With one of the most well developed industries at the start of the war (even counting the Great Depression), and plentiful oil, coal, and steel domestically available, the United States economy outproduced the rest of the world combined by early 1945.
-The killer tech. Nukes were deployed later that year with one or two bombs coming on line every month or so, and the Germans weren't even close when the war actually ended.
-The English and American navies effectively controlled the seas and gave their militaries a level of global mobility that noone else could match. See the tanker reference at the first post for one of the consequences. Cutting off Afrikakorps is another benefit of owning the seas.
-What else? Centimeter/Millimeter wave radar, an airfield called Great Britain that brought the Allies air superiority over the Reich, exodus of many of the best minds from the Reich to the west before the war started.

IMHO, it would require the Russians to back Germany like Italy did to roll the Allies out of the game.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

If by win you mean defeat the Soviet Union, America and the UK, then no it was never really possible for the Axis to win.

The combined industrial weight of these three was just too much for Germany to bear.

 

[pi-r8]

At the time of invasion Russia were considered weak after the Great Purge under Stalin, as a result Hitler considered the mineral deposits and especially the oil there, as a lot easier a target for Germany than other places, such as the Persian Gulf. If Germany were ever to invade Russia then it should certainly have been sooner rather than later. The longer they waited the longer that Russia would have had not only to rebuild their officer corp, but also modernise their industry, which I believe Stalin was doing right up until Barbarossa

After reading a little bit about the Nazi invasion of the USSR, I'm starting to agree with you. It seems like one of the biggest reasons for the Nazi success in the initial stages of the invasion was the fact that, due to Stalin's purges, most of the soviet officers were incredably inexperienced. If Germany had invaded two years earlier, they would have been even more inexperienced. I couldn't find any specific figures on how the relative troop strengths of the two nations changed during the two years they waited, but I'm guessing it probably helped the USSR approach parity with Germany, since Germany did so much military build up before 1939.

 

[Louis XXIV]

The Soviet Union's army was massive, even during Barbarosa, and Stalin figured Hitler would probably attack eventually (although, from what I've read, not for another year). Germany was losing its chance of conquering the Soviet Union, assuming it ever had a chance.

 

[pi-r8]

Hitler wanted a Greater Germany, the biggest country in Eurasia and he was willing to make Germany an outcast and risk destruction in order to do it. He was pretty committed to his goal, and one does not invade Russia for comedic effect.

Sure, but doesn't invading Britain help accomplish that goal as well? Besides, it was pretty clear that Britain was going to oppose any German invasion of the rest of Europe, so Germany would have to do something about Britain whether they wanted to or not.

Germany had nothing that could mount an amphibious operation of that size, even if the Royal Navy and RAF could somehow be taken out of the picture.
Think of 1940 as 1916, and the channel as the trenches. Without completely outnumbering your enemy and cutting off all his supplies an offensive is just not going to work.

I'm not saying it would have been easy to conquer Britain, of course, but I do think it would have been easier than conquering the soviet union. It's much smaller, much closer to Germany, and they didn't have an army nearly as large. It reminds me of a quote from Napolean in the same situation:
"Let us be masters of the Straits for six hours and we shall be masters of the world." Perhaps if Germany put less effort into making panzers, and more effort into making planes or U-boats, they could have done it.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Hitler wanted the slavs to be slaves for the Aryan race. In Hitler's view, the English were basically the same race, so they couldn't be enslaved for him (I'm sure Hitler would have loved Britain to be an ally).

Planes and U-Boats can't overcome the Royal Navy and distances + radar make the Luftwaffe less effective. Communication, the age of sail, etc, made Napoleon's hopes more realistic.