Was it ever possible for the Axis Powers to win?

[Leifmk]

While the Japanese Army performed very well against the 3rd rate Colonial armies it encountered during the conquest of South East Asia in 1941 and early 1942, it was slaughtered from mid 1942 to the end of the war.

And previous to that they had some border clashes with the Soviets with, ah, less than stellar results.

 

[nc-1701]

This site shows exactly why the axis lossed trust me it is surely worth the click.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

This site also has a great deal of interesting info on the IJN to.

 

[CaptainF]

That's a bit of an overstatement, but is basically correct. While the Japanese Army performed very well against the 3rd rate Colonial armies it encountered during the conquest of South East Asia in 1941 and early 1942, it was slaughtered from mid 1942 to the end of the war. Average quality Allied units routinely achieved 10:1 casualty ratios against Japanese troops fighting from pre-prepared defensive positions.

The Imperial Japanese Army was chock full of good fighters, but with crap ass equipment.

 

[CaptainF]

So they would basically have done nothing? That's like saying Germany was screwed for attacking Poland. Yeah, if the war never began, they never would have lost.

Japan desperately needed resources while being able to consolidate their gains and avoid war with the United States. That was nearly impossible, to be honest. If they had not attempted any further gains on mainland China while focusing on the Dutch East Indies and French Indochina, they might have had enough raw material to hold onto what they had. They would have faced a trade embargo from the US, so they have to be able to use what they conquer and be ready to give up fighting at any moment and consolidate what they have. Its a very fine line and, as they went on, they would run lower and lower on the essentials to winning a war (oil, steel, etc). If the US ever did choose to fight them, they would be in a worse position than they were on December 7, 1941.

When the Japanese really started to hammer China in 1937, they already had Manchuria, Korea, Taiwan, and such. All invading China did was suck resources away on a futile conquest.

I personally would have stayed away from the rest of China and moved on to South East Asia. Thats where the oil was.

 

[Luckymoose]

Hitler should have invaded Russia first

No you are wrong.

Hitler should have waited to control Britain first. Without Britain Americans could have no means to launch invasions on Europe. Atleast that early. Once Britain was taken he could have then faced off agaisnt Russia. As back then Russia was humiliatingly weak. The only thing keeping them alive was the vast man power, and the weather.

One mistake people always make is. Invading Russia late in the year. And also not preparing for the cold winters.

Napoleon did it, Hilter did it. History repeats itself all to often.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Ultimately, Germany sought aggressive warfare with two countries whose defensive positions could not be broken by any military force that Germany could possibly have fielded.

If both of these countries could be bruised and compelled to make a compromise peace, then Nazi Germany could have quit while it was ahead, with a dominating position in Europe. But as long as one of these countries was willing to continue to fight, Nazi Germany was guaranteed ultimate defeat.
In the event, both the UK and the USSR were willing to commit themselves to war and so the Nazis couldn't win.

The same situation applies to Japan. China and the USA could not be conquered by any military force Japan could possibly have created.

The fundamental problem the Axis faced was that they simply did not have the resources to defeat large targets.
When you go to war with a country as large as China or the USSR, or as utterly unassailable in it's home territory as the UK or USA, your only hope is to damage them and hope they'll take the easy way out and make peace. If they're willing to continue fighting, you will lose. It may take years or even decades, but you will lose by sheer force of economics.

The Axis relied on dazzling lightning strikes, but when the Allies didn't just plead for mercy and decided to fight on, both Axis powers had to face the grim reality- they had no actual means of winning their respective wars.

Even if you take out the USA/USSR, this holds true. The Axis advanced quickly and then hit a brick wall. The attacks on the USSR and USA were acts of desperation, an attempt by Germany and Japan to break the stalemate that would led inexorably to their annhilation.

 

[bombshoo]

I think your all looking at this as if it were a very long war like it was...Really all it would take was a couple of VERY good victories for Germany and Japan, and Britian and USA might lose the will to fight...In Russia, that was a war for survival so thats a diffrent story, but without aid from foreign powers, it might have been reduced to small groups of armed rebels fairly quickly, and Germany could probably have supply to their oil.

So yeah, prolonged no way, with alot luck in early important battles, its possible. If Dunkirk had gone horribly who knows what Britian would have done. If Britian wasnt involved anymore, would the United States even care?

The reason I think WWII is so interesting is because everything really was at risk. I mean the Axis was the under dog, but victory was hardly impossible. I doubt Ghengis Khan's group of ragtag horsemen looked like they stood much of a chance either, even when you look back on it.

 

[Barış]

Nope, Red Army was just too strong...

 

[Dell19]

I think your all looking at this as if it were a very long war like it was...Really all it would take was a couple of VERY good victories for Germany and Japan, and Britian and USA might lose the will to fight...

They already had quite a few. Real life just isn't a computer game where you can consistantly win every battle, eventually some mistakes were going to be made.

 

[Evie]

That's a bit of an overstatement, but is basically correct. While the Japanese Army performed very well against the 3rd rate Colonial armies it encountered during the conquest of South East Asia in 1941 and early 1942, it was slaughtered from mid 1942 to the end of the war. Average quality Allied units routinely achieved 10:1 casualty ratios against Japanese troops fighting from pre-prepared defensive positions.

To be fair, most of those 10:1 and such casualties ratio were earned with crushing number advantages, against second and third-rate islands garrisons (the crack units were rarely used there), often out of supplies, under naval bombardment.

(And before you go "Guadalcanal...", Guadalcanal was a back-and-forth battle, and more often than not, it was japanesse troops forced to take the offensive)

However, what is true regarding the Japanesse army (and, for that matter, navy) is that they had trubly abysymal leadership, always dead-set on commiting their forces piecemeal rather than in concerted pushes.

 

[onejayhawk]

I'll agree with you on the snorkel and the 262 but taking Moscow wouldn't have won the war for Hitler. Napoleon took Moscow and it didn't do him any good. The main problem with Russia is that every man woman and child would have fought to defend her. The Germans may have won if they could have captured Stalin and the high ranking ministers but thats iffy. Their best bet would be to pound on the Russians so hard that Stalin was overthrown similar to the Tsars in WW1 (very unlikely) then get another treaty like Breast-Lovensk(sp?) out of them but with Stalin's Purges the onyl way to get that to happen would be to seriously discredit him.

I'm getting back into this rather late. There are two main reasons that the Wermacht was different than Napolean's French. First is the relative modernness of the country. EVERYTHING passed through or came from Moscow: rail, communications, supplies, instructions, everything. This was not nearly as true 150 years earlier. Once the Germans occupy the capital, the nation is headless. Also, contrary to popular belief, the Russians did not always fight like demons. They had to be worked up to that state. If they held Moscow, it would be difficult to imagine a successful counter attack organizing. Supply would be the real problem, and again, organization came from Moscow.

Second, Hitler and could KEEP Moscow, so there would be no retreat through the snow, which in fact they had twice in the actual war.

J

 

[onejayhawk]

No you are wrong.

Hitler should have waited to control Britain first. Without Britain Americans could have no means to launch invasions on Europe. Atleast that early. Once Britain was taken he could have then faced off agaisnt Russia. As back then Russia was humiliatingly weak. The only thing keeping them alive was the vast man power, and the weather.

One mistake people always make is. Invading Russia late in the year. And also not preparing for the cold winters.

Napoleon did it, Hilter did it. History repeats itself all to often.

If Hitler attacked Russia first, the US never enters the war, except against Japan. One of Hitlers big problems is that the could go either direction profitably, but couldnt make up his mind.

J

 

[Stolen Rutters]

To be fair, most of those 10:1 and such casualties ratio were earned with crushing number advantages.

Having the mobility that allows this is invaluable in war. Considering the Japanese didn't really have this capability was devastating. This is what not having oil supplies can do to your war machine when faced up against a fully mechanized and supplied opponent, especially if they have manpower, material, and logistical advantages.

Once the war got hot, the Axis regimes were living with a countdown timer. They could delay, but not reverse, ultimate defeat. There was too much at stake for the Allies to allow these regimes to survive.

 

[Evie]

Oh, I quite agree that the Axis' was pretty much a lost cause from rather early on (and most certainly Japan's cause was lost the second they attacked Pearl Harbor). So much the better for all of us.

Just saying that the claim made that Japanesse troops were essentialy only good in fights against third-rate colonial units and could never stand up to standard allied troops could do with a tad bit of nuancing.

 

[Verbose]

Having the mobility that allows this is invaluable in war. Considering the Japanese didn't really have this capability was devastating. This is what not having oil supplies can do to your war machine when faced up against a fully mechanized and supplied opponent, especially if they have manpower, material, and logistical advantages.

Oh, and don't forget military intelligence!
In the Pacific Japanese troops were often fighting blind, or next to, compared to their US adversaries.

 

[Case]

To be fair, most of those 10:1 and such casualties ratio were earned with crushing number advantages, against second and third-rate islands garrisons (the crack units were rarely used there), often out of supplies, under naval bombardment.

Yes, that's true. However, the poor quality of the Japanese Army's leadership handed the Allies some remarkably easy victories. For instance, the decision to ship the main elements of the Japanese Army in the Philipines piecemeal to Leyte fight a meeting engagement with the US forces allowed the Americans to easily liberate the key island of Luzon. Japanese generals also often threw away perfectly good defensive positions by mounting crazy offensives against Allied forces which were clearly superior.

(And before you go "Guadalcanal...", Guadalcanal was a back-and-forth battle, and more often than not, it was japanesse troops forced to take the offensive)

Yeah, Guadalcanal was different, as was the quite competant Japanese defence of Gona-Buna. In both campaigns the Allies were still learning the ropes and their performance was indifferent. However, from late 1942 onwards average Allied units were more than capable of taking the fight to Japanese units and from 1943 Allied combined arms warfare made the outcome of almost every fight a forgone conclusion.

 

[Evie]

I think I already admited that Japan had, aside from a handful of exceptions, some of the most abysymal leadership in the war. And that's the navy too, not just the army ; I can count the number of decent IJN admirals on the fingers of one hand, and use the other for the IJA generals.

 

[Chieftess]

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.

 

[magritte]

Hmmm...I don't think they had any hope of conquering the world. If Germany avoids fighting the Soviets (at least until Britain is dealt with) and the Japanese don't bomb Pearl Harbor, maybe they could have negotiated a treaty with Britain. As others have noted, if you can get Franco to allow them to attack Gibraltar through Spain, there's a good chance you can get to the Middle East and its oil fields. It might also require Japan to make peace with China and concentrate on the British Asian territories.

Once the US enters the war, you're never going to get Britain to make peace.

 

[1889]

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?