Could Germany and the Axis powers have Won the Second World War?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEXT

worldbuilder RE:Could Germany and the Axis powers have Won the Second World War? 10/8/2004 12:27:39 PM

don't forget the german effort was crippled by hitlers detachment with reality.

Quote Reply

ambush Not only NO but heck NO 10/8/2004 4:56:29 PM

Barring any incredible acts of military stupidity by the allies, not only no but heck no. On and economic/industrial basis the Axis were in a losing position. Even had the US lost battles like Midway at best the wars out outcome would not have changed; only been delayed. For all the talk about German technology and wonder weapons remember that the allies could have just as easily, had they chose to, put Jets in the air and in greater numbers to counter the weapons like the ME262. But the allies concetrated on numbers. They could have fielded a better tank than the Sherman (I think it was called the T-20) but they could ship two Shermans in the same cargo space. The US could have had a Flying wing prop (XB-35) or Jet Bomber(YB-49) but chose the more convetnional aircraft. When all was said an done there was no-way anybody was going to compete against US raw industrial might back then. link

Quote Reply

fall out RE:Not only NO but heck NO 10/9/2004 12:13:23 AM

when the US was involved directly, no the Axis couldn't win, but im saying that Germany easily had the potential to defeat the UK (in 40) and the USSR (summer 41 or summer 42) b4 the US got involved and had Germany been in control of ALL of europe, incl the UK, it would've been VERY hard even for the US to take out Germany conventionaly with no foward base.

Quote Reply

bigfella RE:Not only NO but heck NO 10/9/2004 7:23:14 AM

This may be true, but as I've stated earlier, taking the position in '40 or '41 as is and then saying 'what if' ignores the tremendous good fortune germany had enjoyed to that point. Yes, Germany had the superior tactics to make their good fortune really count, but I consider the position in '41 to be unrepresentitive of the true balance of forces to that point. Any number of relatively small changes from 1939 could have significanlty slowed down or even stopped Germany. To stack further luck or 'what ifs' on top of this stretches things a bit too far for mine. Germany & Italy could have won in Europe, but if you ran it from the start I would bet that 8 times out of 10 they would be in a WORSE position in 1941 that they actually were.

Quote Reply

fall out RE:Not only NO but heck NO 10/10/2004 10:26:59 AM

not really, too many ppl count the US in this, IF and i say IF Germany had've taken the UK, either by invasion or complete blockade, which were both very achievable, there would be no major base for the US to stack their forces in Europe and as such would either have to submit to German rule in Europe or be prepared to take millions, not thousands of casualties and even then it would be doubtful the US could defeat Germany. Given that Germany could've very easily taken out the UK in 40, Germany could've very easily waited at least till 42 after taking the mid east (control of their oil and a staging point for taking out the Caucases), africa (control of the Suez) and be 'refreshed' come the summer of 42 and whilst the soviet union would've been better prepared, Germany could've committed ALL of their forces to this push, plus even more Italian forces (mainly for garrison work, etc), with this, i believe Germany could've also easily taken out a big enough chunk of the Soviet Union in order to either bring down the (central) house and/or force an aggressive peace treaty. they had the numbers, the quality (both soldiers and officers), the leadership (bar that one man at the very top), the economy, the superior tactics, superior equipment, the opportunity and sure as hell the will so... germany came close twice to taking out moscow and as such Russia and this was whilst they started their operation later than they wanted due to involvement in the balkans, greece, crete, cyprus, etc and fighting the allies in africa and keeping substantial forces in waiting along the atlantic wall and keeping over 100,000 men in norway. not a bad effort, whilst Russia also had their own non-aggression pact with Japan thus ensuring no second front and enabling them to free massive forces from the far east to help fight the germans, espeically during the 41 campaign that greatly helped them to stop and push the germans back a bit.

Quote Reply

RockPicken RE:Not only NO but heck NO 10/10/2004 11:20:53 PM

Everyone thinks the UK would've been our only possible base to attack from. What about our approach from Africa, southern parts of the mideast, even from India? I reliaze the logistics would've been worse, but we still coulda stacked a LOT of hardware in any of those other palces and mounted attacks from other directions. That would be an interesting discussion; where else could the Allies have attacked had the UK been knocked out of the game?

Quote Reply

RockPicken RE:Not only NO but heck NO 10/10/2004 11:22:06 PM

Sneaking into Norway or somewhere up north might also have led to a different set of tactics. I need to get out a map.

Quote Reply

ozigrunt RE:Not only NO but heck NO 10/11/2004 10:32:52 AM

Some people are not playing the game by the original question; The scenerio was to assume all the players stayed the same. As I said previously using Pop and Industrial capacity the axis was always gonna lose. I don't want to refute each 'what if' in detail but all of them make the assumption that a what if success for Germany would have not been without consequences or counters. e.g. 'what if Germany had twice the subs in '40 they would have been able to strangle Britain.? To have twice the subs then they would have had to make choices which probably would have meant a weaker army or a weaker air force. And therefore they may not have succeeded in the battle of France. Without the fall of France and with the increased threat of subs Britain would have countered with a weaker army and more resources for the navy and anti-sub ops. So to assume just doubling the German subs would have brought success is unsafe. Ditto the fall of Moscow. To push harder for Moscow would have meant weakening another front. And who?s to say that the Russians would have folded with the fall of Moscow anyway, no matter how important it was as a national political, comms and transport centre. Ditto the fall of Britain and the folly of a two front war. Britain didn?t fall because the Germans couldn?t secure naval and/or air superiority over the channel for even the minimal amount of time. And then they had an enormous logistical operation to supply the invasion army (for which they were totally unprepared for). It would have taken a year or more to even attempt this. And what would Russia have done in this year, nothing? I don?t think so Tim. And 1 year later op barrarosa would not have been the strategic or tactical surprise that it was. And so it goes. It always comes down to making choices with limited resources. With small discrepancies it possible smart choices can bring success to the weaker party, but when there is a big discrepancy it requires the stronger party to actually ?drop the ball?

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Not only NO but heck NO 10/11/2004 10:15:18 PM

"It always comes down to making choices with limited resources" - Ozigrunt Now, THAT is a very perceptive observation.

Quote Reply

bsl Historical review 10/11/2004 10:22:04 PM

I seem to wind up posting a note like this every year or so: 1)American participation in WW2 Was NEVER "inevitable". a)Pacific War. America entered ONLY because of the Japanese attack. No Japanese attack, I know of no way to get America in for the foreseeable future, at least as long as Japan did not begin committing atrocities in Australia. Not in context of American politics of the 1930s through Pearl Harbor. European War - It's remarkable how many seem to overlook the fact that what got America into the actual war was a declaration of war, on America, from Germany, in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. Germany declared war on America. Not the other way around. (arguably Hitler's worst single choice of the war). Before that, there was no clear way for America to enter the fight. FDR, in fact, was risking impeachment in his secret tilt towards the British. Had some of the details become public before Pearl Harbor changed American politics at a fundamental level (the escort of British convoys in the West Atlantic, for instance), it's likely he would have been tossed out of office. NEITHER of these factors was inevitable. In fact, the German decision was very, very easy to change. Japan, at least, had some compelling strategic basis on which to have decided to attack Pearl Harbor. Germany had no strong reason to believe that America was going to declare war in the next few years, by which time events in Europe would have been decided one way or the other.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEXT