Axis in WWII

[Calax]

Simply put, could they have won?

 

I mean from the feelings I get from the documentaries and history books that I've seen is that the Axis were doomed from the start because they didn't have the resources to fight the war from the beginning. They were overoptomistic about their works and even if they had "won" they would have ended up with out a sustainable government that could support them after the war and would have led to a revolution within a few years.

 

Anyway, it was just something that was on my mind.

[Humodour]

I think they could have. If a few things went differently.

 

Imagine if they did. Countries like Cuba, North Korea, Iran, China etc would be the norm (or worse). Democracy would be a dream. Would an Axis win be a world state that we could recover from? Maybe it'd take another 200 or 300 years.

[HoonDing]

Simply put, could they have won?

 

I mean from the feelings I get from the documentaries and history books that I've seen is that the Axis were doomed from the start because they didn't have the resources to fight the war from the beginning. They were overoptomistic about their works and even if they had "won" they would have ended up with out a sustainable government that could support them after the war and would have led to a revolution within a few years.

 

Anyway, it was just something that was on my mind.

Even if the Germans had completely won the war in the West, the Russians would've still beaten them imo.

[213374U]

Could have they won? Well, sure. If somehow the Allied powers and the Soviet Union had made catastrophic blunders time and time again, the Axis may have had a chance. The first part of Barbarossa went pretty well... but Soviet morale didn't fail as Hitler had expected - I remember reading somewhere that everything was decided in the battle for Moscow, that Stalin refused to evacuate, that being the communications hub it was it would have given Germany control over pretty much all western Russia while denying the same to the Soviets. But even so, the Soviets had moved their industrial base and were receiving Lend & Lease from the US like crazy. Despite the very, very hairy situation England was in 1940-41, everything seems to have hinged on Hitler's hope for an early Soviet surrender, which is further supported by the fact that Germany was not prepared for a long war neither industrially nor psychologically. They didn't realize until far too late the mess they had gotten themselves into, apparently.

 

Nice topic, btw. There are some serious History buffs around here so this should be interesting.

Edited August 10, 2009 by 213374U

[alanschu]

Well, according to Germany's most famous generals like Manstein and Guderian, some of the decisions from the Commander-in-Chief were absolutely baffling. I believe Manstein wrote in his book that he felt a couple of key points in the Russian battle could have gone much better (i.e. Stalingrad). Continuing the attack in the winter and stuff like that.

 

Hitler was also surrounded by some loonies. Goring was more interested in showing how awesome the Luftwaffe was, rather than actually winning the war, for example.

 

 

Germany had some brilliant tacticians that often were denied requests, or relieved of command, because Hitler was being too idealistic though.

Edited August 10, 2009 by alanschu

[HoonDing]

It also didn't help that the Germans needed to help clean up the Italians' blunders in the Balkan. Big waste of resources there.

[alanschu]

Failing to ahve competent Allies was a bit of a handicap for them haha.

[213374U]

idealistic

I don't think that's the proper technical term, either. From what I've read, his paranoid mindset was strained to the breaking point by a combination of emotional tension, often-contradicting medications prescribed by his personal physician, and an overwhelming workload. This, coupled with his messiah complex made him increasingly unmovable by logic as the war dragged on, leaving only the possibility of a coup. Not exactly the kind of guy you'd want running the war effort, that's for sure. Edited August 10, 2009 by 213374U

[Rosbjerg]

Some very important, and imho impossible victories, for Germany could've won them the war, at least in the short run.. Dissent and guerilla activities would've eventually broken their control of Europe I think.

 

One thing that would've made a huge difference to the war in Europe, could've have started as far away as China.. if Mao hadn't allied himself with China to defeat Imperial Japan, then Japan would probably have taken control of China, which would've meant America had to divert many resources to defeat Japan.. Giving Germany time to fight Russia without worrying so much about 2 fronts.

 

The biggest difference though would have been if Hitler had gone through the middle-east and attacked Russia from 2 sides (see picture), via Turkey, and taking out the Russian oil wells. If that had been successful, Germany could've cut off most of Russia's retreating troops and supplies. Possibly turning the war to Germany's favour, at least until America gained a foothold.

 

To avoid a lengthy war with America later, Germany would have to conquer England and thereby deny America a proper footing in Europe.

[Morgoth]

America would have just dropped a bunch of nukes on Berlin and that's it - easy solutions a 'la the America way are always the most effective ones.

[213374U]

Yeah. Only, they didn't have "a bunch". They had a grand total of 6 nukes in 1945. And conventional carpet bombing caused far more damage, anyway...

Edited August 10, 2009 by 213374U

[Gorgon]

Some very important, and imho impossible victories, for Germany could've won them the war, at least in the short run.. Dissent and guerilla activities would've eventually broken their control of Europe I think.

 

One thing that would've made a huge difference to the war in Europe, could've have started as far away as China.. if Mao hadn't allied himself with China to defeat Imperial Japan, then Japan would probably have taken control of China, which would've meant America had to divert many resources to defeat Japan.. Giving Germany time to fight Russia without worrying so much about 2 fronts.

 

The biggest difference though would have been if Hitler had gone through the middle-east and attacked Russia from 2 sides (see picture), via Turkey, and taking out the Russian oil wells. If that had been successful, Germany could've cut off most of Russia's retreating troops and supplies. Possibly turning the war to Germany's favour, at least until America gained a foothold.

 

To avoid a lengthy war with America later, Germany would have to conquer England and thereby deny America a proper footing in Europe.

In reality the Africa corps retreated that way, they didn't surrender until you could count their tanks with one hand. I guess it's the same problem that plagues every potential invader of Russia, lines of supply. Once you are in there you are more or less trapped. Taking Stalingrad would only have been symbolic as it was reduced to a pile of rubble and could offer Germany no resources.

[Hurlshort]

If Hitler had not gone to war with Russia in the first place, it would have been a very different war. That was a choice he made, and if I remember correctly, quite a few of his advisers said it was too soon to do so.

[Gfted1]

Hasnt it been said that if the war had lasted six more months then Germany would have had nukes?

[Meshugger]

If Hitler had not gone to war with Russia in the first place, it would have been a very different war. That was a choice he made, and if I remember correctly, quite a few of his advisers said it was too soon to do so.

 

That's pretty much the most significant factor.

[alanschu]

The Soviet Union invasion probably would have gone a lot better if Germany did go and bail out Italy in Greece.

 

Though I don't know if waiting would have helped. Stalin was building up his forces as well, and catching the Soviet Union flatfooted resulted in the destruction of several hundred thousand in division casualties.

[Gorgon]

Hasnt it been said that if the war had lasted six more months then Germany would have had nukes?

They quizzed Von Braun and the nuclear scientists they were able to get their hands on, as well as secretly taping them while in the US. It turns out they were quite a bit off on the basic theory. How much Uranium one would need, how it could achieve critical mass, etc. They would have gotten it eventually, but they didn't have the resources to do much of anything in the last stages of the war.

[HoonDing]

If Hitler had not gone to war with Russia in the first place, it would have been a very different war. That was a choice he made, and if I remember correctly, quite a few of his advisers said it was too soon to do so.

Acquiring "Lebensraum", i.e. conquering the Eastern lands to make a new home for the Aryans, was one of the main points of Nazi ideology.

[Monte Carlo]

The 'Axis' was a coalition built on shifting sands - the Japanese and Germans had different geopolitical priorities and Mussolini was, literally, a joke (I can't bring myself to say 'Italy' because Italy wasn't behind the Fascists in the same way Germans were).

 

So, really, we are talking about Nazi Germany, and in 1939 they could have 'won.' After the invasion of Poland, Hitler's war aims were surprisingly realistic - create a greater Reich encompassing continental Europe (playing on the legacy of the 'Betrayal of 1918' theme that helped him win power) and, in the East, stopping at Poland. The non-aggression pact with the Soviets might have held long enough for Germany to buy time for the push against the Communists, or commonsense might have prevailed and the two autocracies come to an accommodation. I'm not an expert in this field, but was the dream of Lebensraum, so central to Nazi ideology, more of an aspiration in 1939/40?

 

Anyway, back to 1939 / 1940. Hitler wanted an accommodation with the British. He was an admirer of Empire and thought that Britain's traditional indifference to the affairs of mainland Europe would enable him to broker a deal. And if it wasn't for Winston Churchill (who loathed Nazism and decided on a principled, almost Quixotic opposition to Germany) there might well have been one. Remember, the Americans had an epic lack of interest in European affairs during this period, were sniffy about the British Empire and saw the Pacific as their natural sphere of influence and expansion.

 

So, in 1939, imagine a Chamberlain government with a policy of appeasement and an indifferent America listening to Joe Kennedy. The Nazis are free to roam the Balkans, Greece and North Africa, with Hitler eyeing up the oil routes across Persia... if he wins those then the Russians will never fuel their war machine. Elsewhere he offers Stalin concessions as he conquers the 'untermensch' and the Soviets, like a sleeping dragon, only belch the occasional sulphurous protestation but marvel at the strength and technology of the growing Wermacht and SS. By 1944, with no invasion of Normandy and no Eastern Front, the Nazis have utilized their heavy water plants and research technology to develop the world's first atomic weapons. In 1946 they launch V6 atomic rockets and nuke Moscow, Leningrad (etc). The Wermacht invades Russia from their southern flank in the Crimea and from Poland. A covert treaty with the Americans sees SS special forces infiltrate across the Bering Straight.

 

So, the Axis lost it because Hitler was completely nuts and invaded Russia. Although, for me, the game was up as soon as Britain declared war, not because of the British army but because of cause and effect - Churchill's sole foreign policy objective was to embroil the USA into the conflict and Pearl Harbour or no Pearl Harbour he'd have done it.

 

This is one of the hoariest counter-factuals amongst historians - my two favourites are Len Deighton's novel SS-GB and Robert Harris' thriller Fatherland (made into a good TV movie with Rutger Hauer).

 

Cheers

MC

Edited August 10, 2009 by Monte Carlo

[Aristes]

I think conventional wisdom is that Germany could not have won the war. However, once we get into counterfactual arguments, it's always easier on the "couldn't have happened any other way" side. I think anything couild have happened, although I tend to agree with folks like Ros who say that German might have won, but consolidating and keeping what they'd taken would have been a different story. My main points are, one, I think Hitler's instincts about Soviet morale would have born true if two things had happened: Moscow had fallen and by some miracle Stalin had been killed in the battle. That assumes, of course, that no other Soviet leader would have stepped up to the plate, but Stalin did have a habit of doing away with anyone talented or intelligent enough to compete with him. The points about Japan are still valid as well. Had things gone differently for them, then the United States certainly would have been forced to rethink its Europe first strategy. All of this is a little on the modern history side for me, but that's how I see it from a relatively uninformed point of view.

 

Keep in mind that, while the nazi philosophy is completely evil, the German high command was actually quite excellent. The Germans didn't make any more blunders than the allies did. They were saddled with the Italians, who were apparently quite incompetent, and they suffered from severe manpower disavantages, but they actually did better than you should really expect.

 

I want to throw my two cents about any proposed invasion of England. The Germans would have lost sooner had they attempted to invade England without air superiority. Now, Hitler really screwed himself at various times in the air campaign against England, particularly in regards to targets, but the British never lost air superiority over the channel or the coast. Without that, the Germans would have failed in my opinion.

[Monte Carlo]

Wargamers, staff colleges and historians have been playing Operation Sealion for donkey's years, hell I watched some bearded real-ale drinkers doing it on tabletop in the 80's at some gaming convention.

 

Generally, it goes like this:

 

1. If the weather holds;

 

2. And the Luftwaffe are up to the job;

 

3. and a beachhead is established...

 

Then it's game over for the British. The german paras invariably get slaughtered and the panzer divisions motoring up the A3 get chewed up with no heavy engineering assets to clear the way.

 

Never saw the Nazis win a theoretical model of Sealion.

[Nihilus5078]

Hitler made the absolutely dumbest move on the Soviets during WWII.

[Oner]

I think everyone agrees on that.

[Morgoth]

Hitler was a psychopath, a nutsjob. A shame really, Central European countries like Germany and Austria used to be the most civiliced places on earth. But noooo......

[Oner]

Hitler was a psychopath, a nutsjob. A shame really, Central European countries like Germany and Austria used to be the most civiliced places on earth. But noooo......

At least Germany learned it's lesson and changed for the better, for a time anyway.

Certain people could really start cutting them some slack. :/