Was it ever possible for the Axis Powers to win?

[Louis XXIV]

Israel's goals were significantly less ambitious and there is evidence that nations like Jordan simply wanted the West Bank, not a total victory. It was also a smaller scale war that ended quicker and did not face the largest industrial nations on a large scale.

The American War for independence was really far away and had significant help from pretty much every European nation besides Britain (including significant help from the second largest power).

 

[Case]

However, you cannot argue that if the Germans could've produced jet fighters in great numbers, they would have seriously hindered the Allied air campaign.

Yes you can: According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_262 the Germans produced no less than 1400 Me 262s. These aircraft are credited with shooting down 150 allied aircraft for the loss of 100 Me 262s. Given the cost of producing the aircraft that's a miserable ratio and probably represents a major Allied victory.

 

[Kal'thzar]

if you read the wiki article you just linked to it says only 200 Me 262's made it into combat units.

 

[tupaclives]

Having recently completed a 12,000 word thesis on operation barbarossa for my history assignment my research has lead me to believe that no it was not possible for the Axis to win the second world war.

My first reason for this is based on the diaries of Halder, the head of the German Chiefs of Staff from 1938-1942. His diaries credit the victory over France to the German troops and generals, and labels hitler as an idiot who was convinced of his own genius. It was the generals who won the victories in the lowlands, who defeated the Maignot line but it was Hitler who, worried by the success of his troops, halted before Dunkirk allowing the British army to escape.

Hitler flat out refused to make Mosocw a major target, he was obsessed with the Ukraine and Caucasus oil fields and with Stalingrad despite major urging to make Moscow the main target and repeated warnings about the dangers of pursuing both the Caucasus oil fields and Stalingrad at once.

With Hitler as leader Germany could not defeat the Soviet Union.

Furthermore Italy's incompetance was a drain on Nazi resources and proved to be more of a hinderance then a help.

The other theory I made mention of in my assignment is that of Viktor Suvorov in his books Icebreaker, M-Day and Last Republic which states that the Soviet Union was planning an invasion of Western Europe in order to continue its 'world revolution' and that Operation Barbarossa was a pre-emptive strike.

While this theory is hotly disputed by many historians it is gaining credibility and is becoming increasingly popular amongst younger European historians, particuarly in Russia. However American historians have tended to disregard this theory.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Axis powers were insufficient to defeat the Soviet Union, even with a two pronged striker from Japan and Europe.
That it was insufficient to defeat the United States and that Britains conquest would have virtually exhausted Axis power Europe.

As for not attacking the Soviet Union, it is important to remember Hitler's insistence in Mein Kampf that the slavs were subhuman and that lebensraum should be sought in the East. Also that Fascism and Communism were radically different ideologies which could not remain compatible. Staling was also certainly not a man who would remain peaceful for ever. Furthermore there was a major and long-running hatred between the Teutonic people and the Slavic people.

What would have allowed the Axis to win the war?
The flippant answer would be defeating the Soviet Union, Britain and the US but realistically I don't believe any were really feasible.

 

[Case]

if you read the wiki article you just linked to it says only 200 Me 262's made it into combat units.

What a miserable result from producing 1400 aircraft! Only one in 7 was issued to a combat unit and half of these aircraft were destroyed for little gain. I think that it makes it pretty clear that mass producing jet aircraft wasn't going to help Germany.

 

[steviejay]

Having recently completed a 12,000 word thesis on operation barbarossa for my history assignment my research has lead me to believe that no it was not possible for the Axis to win the second world war.

you should post the thesis on here. I've always liked reading other people's stuff

 

[Case]

The other theory I made mention of in my assignment is that of Viktor Suvorov in his books Icebreaker, M-Day and Last Republic which states that the Soviet Union was planning an invasion of Western Europe in order to continue its 'world revolution' and that Operation Barbarossa was a pre-emptive strike.

While this theory is hotly disputed by many historians it is gaining credibility and is becoming increasingly popular amongst younger European historians, particuarly in Russia. However American historians have tended to disregard this theory.

David Glantz, the leading western expert on the WW2-era Soviet military, demolished Suvorov in his massive book 'Stumbling Colossus'. I believe that Suvorov is regarded as unreliable at best my most specialists in this field. His basic thesis that the Soviet military was primed and ready to invade europe in 1941 seems to be in direct contrast to the pathetic combat performance of the Soviet military in 1941 and 1942. The argument that Barbarossa was a 'pre-emptive strike' also flies in the face of Hitler's declared intentions when ordering the invasion (eg, to conquer all of Russia west of the Urals and reduce the population to slavery).

 

[Kal'thzar]

What a miserable result from producing 1400 aircraft! Only one in 7 was issued to a combat unit and half of these aircraft were destroyed for little gain. I think that it makes it pretty clear that mass producing jet aircraft wasn't going to help Germany.

True, However I was correcting the false impression you gave.

 

[tupaclives]

David Glantz, the leading western expert on the WW2-era Soviet military, demolished Suvorov in his massive book 'Stumbling Colossus'. I believe that Suvorov is regarded as unreliable at best my most specialists in this field. His basic thesis that the Soviet military was primed and ready to invade europe in 1941 seems to be in direct contrast to the pathetic combat performance of the Soviet military in 1941 and 1942. The argument that Barbarossa was a 'pre-emptive strike' also flies in the face of Hitler's declared intentions when ordering the invasion (eg, to conquer all of Russia west of the Urals and reduce the population to slavery).

Agreed, at best Suvorov is unreliable, however as I stated there is a growing support of his theories, particuarly amongst young historians in europe. My thesis contained not only the 'establishment' theories but also other more radical ones such as Suvorov's and those of Daniel Michels in 'Exposing Stalin's plan to conquer Europe: How the Soviet Union 'lost' the Second World War'. Obviously there are many flaws in the 'pre-emptive strike' theory however there are also several points raised in it which would suggest that there was more going on then is shown in the 'establishment' theory. Well, that there is more going on OR that Halder is correct when he labels Hitler as an idiot and that Hitler really has no idea about war. Also Hitler himself seems unsure about the reasons for the war. In Robert Cecil's 'Hitler's Decision to Invade Russian 1941' he quotes various dispatches and proclamations made by Hitler, which include the conquest of Russia, Lebensraum, Fighting Jewish Bolsheivism, A pre-emptive strike against the Soviet Union, the need for raw resources etc.

 

[Leifmk]

There is no doubt in my mind that the Axis powers were insufficient to defeat the Soviet Union, even with a two pronged striker from Japan and Europe.

I don't think there was that much Japan could have done to really hurt the USSR anyway. Even if they'd somehow been able to not get their butts consistently kicked in land warfare against the Red Army, even if they'd managed to outright conquer the entire Russian Far East, this would not have been much of a threat to the actual productive industrial and agricultural heartland of the Soviets, for the simple reason that there are thousands of kilometers of Siberia in the way.

 

[GinandTonic]

I dont see the overwelming need for russian resorces. If hitler hadnt invaded russia then resorces would not have been diverted from the siege of malta and africa.

If he had limited operations to keeping the brits bottled up, taken control of the med and africa then dominating the mid east would have been achievable. If japan was threaterning india from the east with germany threaterning it from the west the brits could have been forced to the table. If germany had control of african rubber and the ability to shift it to japan then they would not have needed to attack america.

Sure long term peace with russia wasnt on the cards, but if both germany and japan had been at peace with the commonwealth, with no overwelming resorce shortages and secure transport between them via suez they could have cut russia to ribbons. At the very least forcing russia to cede the european and far eastern provinces.

If they attacked russia or not america would have been an irrelivance, they would not have allied with russia unless they were forced to it. Alone they would have been secure in the medium term but unable to fight a war aginst both japan and germany.

The key as I see it was to pick off the commonwealth, russia and america separately.

 

[andis-1]

Axis could have won, if it had not been for three things:

1) Britain. Even if US could have won the war at sea they could not have invaded europe without british isles. Hitler had to cancel invasion of britain because luftwaffe didn't manage to destroy RAF. They could have done it, actually they were well on their way to success, but then gobbels decided to start bombing british cities instead of their airfields. This made it possible for RAF to regroup and effectively continue keep on fighting.

2) Hitler. This idiot decided to pursue for Ukraine and caucasus before moscov during operation barbarossa. A grave mistake as it is, but he also didn't listen to his generals, and when he met critisism he removed his best generals from the office. Complete moron.

3) Italy. Mussolini caused several additional fronts to the axis, fronts which the incompetent italian army could not handle. Germany had to divert various resources to fight in balkans and africe, resources which would have been needed elsewhere.

 

[fing0lfin]

What a miserable result from producing 1400 aircraft! Only one in 7 was issued to a combat unit and half of these aircraft were destroyed for little gain. I think that it makes it pretty clear that mass producing jet aircraft wasn't going to help Germany.

You don't get the whole picture. Only one in 7 flew because of lack of fuel.
And the 200 which flew made wonderfull performence. Don't forget that they had fought against an enemy who hevily outnumbered them !! In this ciricumstances 150 shot donw planes, with 100 loses is pretty good.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Axis could have won, if it had not been for three things:

1) Britain. Even if US could have won the war at sea they could not have invaded europe without british isles. Hitler had to cancel invasion of britain because luftwaffe didn't manage to destroy RAF. They could have done it, actually they were well on their way to success, but then gobbels decided to start bombing british cities instead of their airfields. This made it possible for RAF to regroup and effectively continue keep on fighting.

We've been over this. The Luftwaffe couldn't destroy the production centers and northern air bases of Britain because they didn't have the range, so there would have been replacement fighters. Maybe this wouldn't make a difference if Germany was producing more fighters, but they were being outproduced. As the campaign went on, the Luftwaffe would have become more and more outnumbered. With radar, the RAF could respond faster, and, because they were fighting over their homes, their pilots had a greater survivability rate.

2) Hitler. This idiot decided to pursue for Ukraine and caucasus before moscov during operation barbarossa. A grave mistake as it is, but he also didn't listen to his generals, and when he met critisism he removed his best generals from the office. Complete moron.

Then again, the Ukraine has strategic advantages with food to supply Germany and the Caucasus has oil. Napoleon captured Moscow - it didn't defeat Russia. The Soviet government could have moved west past the urals where Nazi planes couldn't reach (and Soviet industry couldn't be touched). They'd probably have to go a lot further than Moscow to conquer the Soviet Union and there is only so much territory they could occupy before being stretched too thin.

3) Italy. Mussolini caused several additional fronts to the axis, fronts which the incompetent italian army could not handle. Germany had to divert various resources to fight in balkans and africe, resources which would have been needed elsewhere.

Can't argue with that. Italy definately dragged on Germany's resources, especially the Balkans. The needed occupation of Italy after Mussolini's defeat was another drag. But Africa might have been an advantage for Hitler, since it was a place to hurt Britain without the almost impossible task of conquering the island itself. I think they had a more realistic chance of capturing the Suez than any of their other failed objectives.

 

[Case]

You don't get the whole picture. Only one in 7 flew because of lack of fuel.

Yeah, that's part of the point I'm trying to make: the mass production of jet aircraft couldn't help Germany as she couldn't actually put these aircraft into service. As a result they were a waste of resources. The Germans may as well have dumped all the materials which went into their construciton into the Baltic.

And the 200 which flew made wonderfull performence. Don't forget that they had fought against an enemy who hevily outnumbered them !! In this ciricumstances 150 shot donw planes, with 100 loses is pretty good.

Given the very high cost of the Me-262 and its supposed status as the best fighter aircraft of the war I really don't see how a 1.5:1 kill ratio is a good achievement.

 

[Adler17]

According to http://www.luftwaffe.cz/dusen.html:
The 40 German jet pilot aces shot down 357 enemy planes. Not counting the victories not confirmed due to the end of the war. And not including the kills by the other jet pilots. So in the end a number between 500- 1000 or more is much more realistic. So a kill ratio of 5- 10: 1 is outstanding for that times and situation.
But the discussion here is another: Could the axis have won the war? Yes, they could. But only without Hitler, Göring and the other gang.
So what were the strategic mistakes:

1. Not going on to full mobilization before 1943.
2. Not introducing weapons in the right situation and the right place, like the Me 262 as fighter or long range strategic bomber. Or the build up of a stronger fighter force.
3. Britain not invading (and the errors of the BoB on German sides). True, the Germans could not reach the British bases in the Midlands, but that would be not that problem as some here post. Indeed air superiority over the invasion area was neccessary but also enough. And with advancing, also English air fields coule be used.
4. Attacking Russia so late and not going for Moscow. Without Moscow, the road and railroad centre, the whole Russian infrastructure would have broken down, as there were no other ways to get massive forces fast to the south or north. That would have doomed all Russian forces west and south of Moscow.
5. Italy: The mistakes of Mussolini were already told. Attacking Greece, incompetence in North Africa, not taking Malta.
6. No real support for Rommel: With that support he would have managed to win the Africa war and take North Africa and the middle East, let Turkey join the war on German side, as well as liberating Iran from the Allied occupation- and so having the opportunity to attack Russia's oil reseves at Baku from the South.
7. Declaring war on the US before Britain is taken AND Russia doomed (I mean at least Moscow and the Baku area as well as the Ukraine taken).

Then the Axis had chances to win the war.

Adler

 

[steviejay]

Heh I think Adler sums it up perectly

 

[s.c.dude]

one thing why didn't ireland side with the axis irish and english are not the best of pals and ireland could be used to bomb scotland also why didnt franco join. the fleet at gibralter looked like a pretty tempting target not to mention the city itself

 

[steviejay]

Personally, I think both were being very clever. The Irish could have declared on Britain, but then the Brits would come in and kick their arse. The Germans couldn't send forces to Ireland to help so the Irish siding with the Germans would only have caused a great deal of hurt for the people of Ireland.

Franco..... hmm.... yes the Axis powers did help him get into power and he was certainly friendly towards Hitler and Co but he wasn't reckless. After the war I'm under the assumption he really needed to consolodate his position within Spain. He had just spent several years fighting in a Civil War, he didn't have the will or the ability to start another war, especially against the British Empire.

However please someoen correct me if I'm wrong, Spain during the war isn't exactly one of my strong points

 

[ParkCungHee]

You would be correct. Also, the Franco was friendly with Hitler, he didn't like his war plans, at least until barbarossa (which he sent two divisions to fight in).

Lastly, it would be in complete violation of the treaties he signed with Salazar before the war. One of the few Pre-war diplomatic victories for the Allies, Portugal agreed to not join the allies in the event of a war (which it did do in the first world war) in exchange for Franco not joining the Axis in the event of a war. Both dictators thought it would annihilate the Iberian and marginalize it to a pawn of the two alliances. Both were pretty much right.