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 Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT

fall out RE:2 or 3 years? Nope 11/9/2004 1:31:25 AM

i agree with bsl on this one. Hitler and the Nazis actually never planned on going to war in 1939, but 1944 was the planned date and you cant just say that Germany would maul the allies 'cos they built alot of tanks/ships, etc, there's two sides of a coin and france/britain/us/ussr were ALL re-arming at a prodigous rate even b4 poland, the US alone was laying down the keels for the most powerful navy ever patrolled the waters of this world. during poland, france had ordered for the maginot line to be extended to the sea thus covering the gaps between belgium (the ardennes) and france which would've made it alot harder for the germans to break the allies, not to mention the BEF would've been alot tougher to crack also. 1939 was as good a year as any for hitler to begin his final stages of conquests due to the poor posture of the allies (britain and pacifism and france and political instability) and russia (post-purges), the only things he should've done differently were mainly building more u-boats (donitz wanted 200 come war yet they started off with 23!), once the war started he also should've placed speer as head of armaments to arc up the powerful german economy; hitler never ordered the economy into full overdrive until '44 when it was too late. re nukes for germany, ive actually read a report made by a team of MPs sent into germany after the war to ascertain exactly that, how close were they? they came back saying they needed only plutonium and norway was a big part of that (heavy water plants) but fortunately the allies took action b4 it was too late. japan's biggest mistake was to attack the US BUT, they really had no choice, the USSR had only recently given them a spanking and the american presence on the phillipines was to dangeorus to leave un-checked (due to their reliance on shipping of raw materials from various other asian countries). pearl habour had more oil than japan's ENTIRE oil reserves, so not invading pearl habour was their biggest tactical error and as bad as it is, a chemical attack on the east coast of america may well force peace talks on the table and force the US to recognise Japanese influence in Asia, or simply cement America's will to destroy Japan.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:2 or 3 years? Nope 11/9/2004 11:22:58 PM

"i agree with bsl on this one." !!!!

Quote Reply

bigfella RE:2 or 3 years? Nope 11/10/2004 8:34:59 PM

I'm with FO & bsl on this one. Hitler didn't think the allies would actually go to war over Poland, so lets assume he still does that and the allies do nothing, so he sticks with his 'war in 43' plan. France 1943: in 1940 the Luftwaffe held a quantitative and often a qualitative edge. France & Britain began to rearm later, but production of more & better planes was already in high gear by 1940. - In 1940 the germans had some better tanks (Pz3 & 4) and MUCH better tactics. I don't know if the French & British tanks would have improved much (though the Brits would have been using the vastly better 6 pounder), but their tactics were already changing. Both had formed armoured divisions and were forming more. Three more years would have allowed better training in armoured warfare, diminshing germany's 1940 advantage. - In 1943 germany would have had a bigger navy, esp the surface fleet (Hitler's real love). They would have had 1 carrier, but it wasn't a great one. The French & Brits would also have had more ships & more carriers. I also wonder if U-boat detecting technology such as sonar would have improved. Russia 1943: In 1941 the Red Army was still recovering from the purges. It was also re-forming the tank divisions & armies disbanded by Stalin. Imagine Russia in 1943 with competent commanders properly trained in tank doctrine armed to the teeth with T-34s, KV-1s and whatever improvements had been made in the meantime. Japan is screwed no matter when it attacks. 1941 was as good as anytime, especially given US petrol oil sanctions. On the other hand, the Japanse weren't going to attack until the Russians were deeply engaged in a European war. Japan lost something like 60,000 troops at Khalkin-Gol in 1939. They were terrified of the Russians. of course, by '43 the US is better armed & prepared. Perhaps Japan doesn't attack at all. No matter, they lose badly.

Quote Reply

fall out RE:2 or 3 years? Nope 11/12/2004 12:35:47 AM

BSL - "!!!" Bigfella - "I'm with FO & bsl on this one" OMG, we've actually agreed on an alternative history debate!! haha, incredible! ;) although i cant help myself on a few things... "but their tactics were already changing. Both had formed armoured divisions and were forming more. Three more years would have allowed better training in armoured warfare, diminshing germany's 1940 advantage" - just because they were forming more armoured divisions doesnt mean their tactics are changing, even in 1940 British and French tanks outnumbered German tanks yet the Germans used them wisely, ie Blitzkrieg, punching a hole thru the defences with massive armoured support rather than thinning out their forces, something of which everybody in the world did except the Germans and the lack of conflict meant they had no real grounds to change (in their eyes). "In 1943 germany would have had a bigger navy, esp the surface fleet (Hitler's real love). They would have had 1 carrier, but it wasn't a great one. The French & Brits would also have had more ships & more carriers." - true, the French fleet even in '40 was something to be impressed with, BUT, in the event of a war with France, Germany would be attacking on the land (re '40) and had they succeeded (not saying they would) the Kriegsmarine may well have had the capability to capture (as well as the Italian navy, which was the only decent and modern arm of the Italian armed forces, yet of course was decimated by a few british bombers at Taranto) the main French fleet intact, making life REALLY hard for the RN. "I also wonder if U-boat detecting technology such as sonar would have improved." - dont know about this one, much like the armoured divisions and differing tactics i would imagine, no submarine war meant that most of the men in charge would not see them as a threat (alot of RN Admirals despised subs, even in the German navy) and Germany was building alot more subs B4 Poland yet started with only 23 Atlantic going u-boats; of which did enough damage to quickly change the mind of these Admirals and to make Churchill realise that the Germans could force the poms to the peace table without even landing any troops on the isles. the Red Army would've had more time to recover from the purges yes, an interesting question then arises of would the allies see Russia as a greater threat than Nazi Germany, after all we all know what happened after WW2 was over... as i said about the Jap's, the only real hope they had was an invasion of Pearl Habour, disabling the American carriers there (not the battleships) and a gas attack (of which they did have extensive plans for) on the west coast of America in an attempt to force the Yanks to the peace table. As it was, they only jabbed the biggest kid on the block once in the head where it should've been a king-hit; from behind. also, ive wondered about this for a while now, what chance did the Jap's have of fighting only the European allies (Poms, French, Dutch and also Australia + NZ) without getting the Americans involved? After all, apart from the Phillipines, the Japanese wanted/needed most of South-East Asia which wasn't in the hands of the Americans at all.

Quote Reply

rikopotomous RE:Could Germany and the Axis powers have Won the Second World War? 11/27/2004 4:14:05 AM

YES THEY COULD HAVE. If Japan had left us alone they would have conquered the Eastern Hemisphere and we'd be in the 79th year of the 3rd Reich and what 79th eon of the Japanese imperial dynasty lol

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Could Germany...-Riko. 11/27/2004 9:04:06 PM

"If Japan had left us alone...." No. There's more to history than the black letters. The spaces in between count, too. The mistake in this analysis is to take a valid and legitimate observation, that America got into war with Japan only after Japan attacked, first, and got into war with Germany because Germany declared war on America - both true - and conclude that this was the only significant factor in play and that what had happened would continue, indefinitely, under any other conditions. In fact, the motion of America opinion was already swinging towards directly confronting both the European Axis and Japan before December 7, 1941. It hadn't yet moved enough to allow FDR to directly, overtly confront Germany and Japan without those countries' cooperation. But, that's the way it was going. Before the Germans declared war on the US, FDR was already having America naval forces running convoy escorts on British convoys in the west Atlantic. This was unconstitutional and it was clearly an act of war against Germany, but it was happening. America was building American military bases and strength in the Pacific as fast as possible when the Japanese attacked. That was a main reason the Japanese DID attack. No attack on Pearl Harbor would have complicated things. The Axis would have been in a stronger position before America got into an alternate reality war. But, America was going to fight the Germans sooner or later, and was almost certain to fight Japan if Japan expanded it's war outside China, too. Without Pearl Harbor.

Quote Reply

bigfella RE:Could Germany...-Riko. 11/28/2004 5:41:38 AM

There is another key issue here - why Japan attacked Pearl in the first place. It wasn't because the Japanese are nasty and evil, but because they felt that they had to given what they planned to do next. America had already moved to cut of Japanese oil & freeze finances after they took over Indochina (I think). Japan needed oil, and the oil was on Borneo. Was America just going to sit by while Japan took over Borneo? I doubt it. Look at a map, US air & naval forces in the Philippines controlled several vital choke points for that supply of oil. Given that America was already pissed of with Japan, the Japanese had every reason to believe that America would have used this position to cut Japan off from that oil if she tried to expand further south. To this end the key was the US Pacific fleet. Japan preferred to attack on her own terms, while America was unprepared, than face America in 6, 12 or 18 months when she was ready to fight. To this extent the attack made sense, but senior Japanese planners underestimated America. They saw it as a weak, decadent society that might be prepared to sue for peace after a few heavy blows. Yamamoto, who had lived in America, knew this was wrong. He argued this point, but lost. Under the circumstances a US/Japan confrontation was highly likely. Japan knew she was outmatched if America really wanted a fight, but honped she didn't. WRONG!!

Quote Reply

fall out RE:Could Germany...-Riko. 11/28/2004 6:02:08 AM

i cant let you two have your two cents worth without me chiming in! ;) had the japanese invaded Pearl, which she was clearly capable of that time, this would cut off the Americans from their only staging base at the time (the Phillipines one would imagine would stil be taken), and give Japan more oil than she had in reserve and give her an opportunity to intercept any American convoy/fleet sailing practically anywhere in teh Pacific, but most importantly, just as they were coming out of America. Im not saying Japan would've won had she done this, but just that it would've put her in a much stronger posture, cos it's not exactly a real good idea to jab the biggest kid on the block from behind, if it's going to be that, it needs to be kinghit, any thing less is signing your own death warrent. even though it's a horrible idea, i wonder how the American public (and the govt) would react had the Japanse launched a massive chemical attack against the western seaboard on the US, such a blow may well have been enough to force America to the peace table (perhaps after FDR was replaced/assasinated...??) or more likely made America focus on Japan first, Germany second, thus making it harder for the poms and ruskies over in Europe.

Quote Reply

Robert996 RE:My thoughts on a Axis victory 12/13/2004 12:31:43 AM

I realize that this Monday morning quarterbacking at its worse and a bit of ?alternative reality? history but I liked the topic. The Axis could have won World War II by doing the following things: 1. Remove Hitler from the Equation -- First of all in order for the following decisions to occur it would be ideal if Hitler died on or around June 25th 1940, whether via plane crash, assassination, or heart attack. This would have been late enough for Hitler to have forced war upon Europe but his departure at this point in time would have been early enough to prevent a string of strategic blunders and errors that doomed Germany. 2. No Miracle at Dunkirk -- The ?Stop Order? issued to Guderian?s panzers on May 24th- 26th should not have been issued. While it was a sound tactical decision to halt the drive on the besieged British and French troops, the loss of their forces (338,000 men) would have strengthened Germany?s hand far more and made a negotiated peace with Britain more likely. The loss in German tanks would have been negligible compared to the massive prisoner haul. 3. No Relief for the RAF during Battle of Britain ? There were certainly misassessments and mistakes made all along the line on both sides during the Battle of Britain. However, one of the greatest comes from the German?s communication mistakes during ?the Eagle Attack? of August 13th-15th. Although suffering about the same losses as the British during the attack, the Germans felt they did poorly, and called off further attacks against British radar stations just as they were beginning to pay off. This, coupled with the German?s decision to give up direct strikes against the RAF on September 1st cost them the Battle of Britain. Had the Germans kept up the pressure, and diverted their bombing efforts against the RAF and British shipping instead of at its major cities, Germany could have kept the RAF at bay for some time and perhaps over time, decimate them so fully that large scale allied bombing raids against the occupied France and Germany would never have come to fruition. 4. No London Blitz ? The Blitz of London was a misdirection of effort that allowed the RAF to recover and eventually master the Luftwaffe. London absorbed damage like a giant sponge and won a great deal of favorable PR to be used on the American public. The Blitz arose from a lost German aircrew that dropped its bombs on London on August the 25th, this act caused the British to bomb Germany, which in turn infuriated Hitler who swore that London would be bombarded to rubble. Had this costly mistake not been made it would have allowed German assets to be used against British military targets, limiting British war-making capacity, instead of throwing it away trying to subjugate the British people from the air. 5. No Attack on Russia, No Declaration of War on America ? Had Germany not attacked Russia, massive amounts of troops were available to be used in the North African theatre. Germany gained no long term advantages by attacking Russia, had Germany even succeeded in taking and holding Moscow, the partisan activity and logistics would have made and Allied victory more likely. Germany would have been in a far more favorable position to invade North Africa, seizing Egypt and pushing east into the Middle East and possibly taking India. This would only have been possible if the British were kept occupied with defense of the home island and Russia as well as the Americans were left alone. Germany had little to gain by declaring war on the U.S. except for a brief period of massive sinkings of US shipping by U-boats. 6. No Invasion of Crete, Invasion of Malta -- Germany threw away 6,000 of its best paratroops in taking Crete on May 20th, 1941. What should have occurred was a German invasion of Malta instead. Malta was a mere 60 miles south of Sicily, and a small island at only 122 square miles. Malta constantly endangered Axis shipping as it sat directly astride the main Axis supply lines into North Africa. Crete was an unimportant objective because although it put the Ploesti oil fields within range of British bombers, Luftwaffe formations could still intercept those bombers from over 100 miles from Ploesti in Greek territory also, had greater emphasis been placed in the North African campaign, any bomber forces on Crete would have had the rug pulled out from under them once Axis forces captured the Suez canal. An invasion of Malta made this a possibility, whereas an invasion of Crete was a waste of resources. 7. A Different Invasion on June 21st -- Instead of invading Russia, Germany should have concentrated its forces in the deserts of North Africa. A push into Egypt on June 21st 1941, cutting the Suez canal, movement into the oil rich middle east, and capture of India all would have made a British cease-fire more likely. By not invading Russia or declaring war on America, Germany could have ruled Europe as it wished. A Japanese victory is much less likely, however, and it is almost certain that they never realistically had a chance for victory after the strike on Pearl Harbor. However, had the battle for the Coral Sea and the battle of Midway had different outcomes more favorable to the Japanese, the war in the Pacific could have been dramatically altered.

Quote Reply

Commander Erwin Rommel might have given Germany ultimate victory 3/24/2005 6:11:10 PM

The Germans in North Africa were rather small compared to any other fighting Germans fighting in other fronts. But through the genius of Erwin Rommel the Afrika Korp stretch as far as Egypt. His successes were hindered by the lack of supplies given to him by Hitler. The possibility is if even just 1/4 of the supplies that were sent to the Eastern front. Rommel's genius might have reached as far as Egypt even reaching Turkey. Once Germany reaches Turkey it would convince Turkey to join th Axis powers and avenge the defeat of their own empire in WW1. A nation like Turkey can field as much as four million men not only that Turkey is the home of the Islam's religious leader. Turkey could then declare a Jihad against Soviet Russia. Britain might then make a compromise peace to Germany and might even become an ally. This might sound over extravagant but the if you look at the situation more closely the possibilitys are high. Even if they could no stop the Soviet advance or give Britain a peace.With the help the Islamic Jihad they could slow down the Allies and give enough time for Germany to make more Jet FIghters, V1 and V2 rockets and even the atomic bomb!

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust Erwin Rommel might have given Germany ultimate victory 3/24/2005 6:34:34 PM

Rommel was not going to be able to deliver due to a number of things: 1) The blocking of approp action by CoS Pemsel, who ignored Speidels request from Rommel 2) The further blocking of Rommels requests by Jodl to supporting requests from von Rundstedt. Hitler was not to have his orders countermanded. There is an excellent piece of work on how close D Day could have turned in the Germans favour by Peter Tsouras. Tsouras is a senior analyst at the US Army National Ground Intelligence Center (sic). Tsouras also veils how Bradleys refusal to take Montgomeries advice re preparation for Omaha cost unnecessary lives. He rates Montgomery as the superior tactician for D Day who should have been listened to by Eisenhower and Co. It is a refreshingly honest appraisal of force performance at both the individual (command) and unit (massed elements) level.

Quote Reply

ShallowThinker1 RE:Could Germany and the Axis powers have Won the Second World War? 3/25/2005 10:20:38 AM

I am late to this thread and haven't gone through the discussion. I would like to propose, however, that had Germany been able to knock England out of the war they would have potentially been able to win in Europe and, perhaps, Russia. If the proposals I make have already been discussed, I apologize in advance (I'll go back and read the thread after I've blurted out my shallow thinking here). This is not the same as the Axis winning WWII. I do not believe there is any way Japan could have defeated the US. So, no, I don't see how the Axis could have won WWII. Sow how might the Germans won their theater of WWII? Any such discussion is, of course, hypothetical and based upon speculation that alters what were the realities of the time. I do however, believe that the Germans could have managed it had they armed, planned, and executed differently. As I mentioned above the key to this would have been eliminating England from the war. The Germans failed to accomplish this because they failed to win the Battle of the Atlantic, the Battle of England, and the Battle of North Africa. I don't see how the Germans could have won the Battle of the Atlantic but this was, in my estimation, the one of the three battles I mentioned that they could have afforded to "lose". Had they won the other two this would have become a moot point. How might the Germans have won the Battle of England? I fully admit that this is pure speculation and I an no WWII historian. As far as I have looked into the history of this portion of WWII, however, it seems to me that had Hitler selected a capable Air Minister rather than the inept Hermann G�ring, the Luftwaffe may have avoided making the two fatal mistakes they made in the Battle of England. The first fatal mistake was lack of intelligence. The Luftwaffe had, frankly, a piss poor understanding of England's "early warning system" and their ability to build and repair their fighters. Due to this lack of intelligence they made the second fatal mistake of improperly using the Luftwaffe vs. the RAF. Englands radar system was an extremely effective but vulnerable system. Without it it seems unlikely they could have successfully fought of the Luftwaffe. Eith even mediocre intelligence the Luftwaffe might have determined how vulnerable the early warning system was and seriously diminished its capacity. They might also have understood that England had a very tenuous capacity to build and repair their fighter force. Had they had reasonable intelligence they could have focused the Luftwaffe on attacking the radar system, the fighter factories, and airfields. Had they done this rather than the "blitz" of London, I believe they might have won this particular engagement by attrition if nothing else. Now consider the battle for North Africa. The Afrika Korp was never much more than a reinforced Panzer division. Yes, I know that there was a very large contingent of Italian infantry, but this was as much a hindrance as a help to Rommel. Had Rommel been given a legitmate armored corps similar to what Guderian or Koch had available to them during Barbarossa, it seems sure to me that he would have made short work of British forces and captured Egypt. This presumes, of course, that the Germans could have supplied such a force. I doubt they could have done so without capturing Malta and that may not have been possible. Had the Germans won the Battle of Britain and the North Africa, however, I don't see how England could have remained in the war. Joe Kennedy would have had a much stronger argument to Roosevelt (or been able to go past him to the people) and the US could easily have been denied the "unsinkable aircraft carrier" and Germany may have escaped the eventually debilitating effects of strategic bombing. Defeating Russia would have been possible, it seems to me, had the Germans concentrated on Moscow, then Stalingrad, especially if they'd been able to pressure the Caucusus through the Middle East. Just ideas.

Quote Reply

ShallowThinker1 RE:Erwin Rommel might have given Germany ultimate victory 3/25/2005 2:03:46 PM

Commander,

The Germans in North Africa were rather small compared to any other fighting Germans fighting in other fronts. But through the genius of Erwin Rommel the Afrika Korp stretch as far as Egypt.

The matter of Rommel and the Afrika Korp is, to me, one of the more fascinating WWII situations. Hitler sent the Afrika Korp over there to save Mussolini's arse and the, IMO, failed to capitalize but providing him with sufficient support to finish off the British there. And Rommel's actions there, his incredible successes, are based largely on his refusal to obey his orders. Had he obeyed his orders the Brits, thanks to Ultra, would have cleaned his clocks because not only were they able to interdict his supplies but they knew where he was supposed to be and when. He was never where he was supposed to be or moving in the direction he was supposed to move. He'd be ordered not to attack and he'd attack. He'd be ordered not to retreat and he'd retreat. The German High Command wouldn't have needed to provide Rommel with anything even approaching 1/4 of what went to the Russian front. A mere twice what they did provide him almost certainly would have been enough to push the Brits right out of Egypt or, at least, bottled them in Alexandria and cut their supply through the Suez. Supplying to that level across the Med, however, would almost certainly have required that the Germans take Malta and I'm not convinced they could have pulled that off without serious naval support from the Italian fleet and the Italians didn't seem interested in naval engagement.

Quote Reply

Shooter RE:Could Germany and the Axis powers have Won the Second World War? 3/25/2005 3:09:49 PM

I have played this out twice and won both times. What is required is for the Germans to convince the Japanise player(s) that it is in their best interest not to attack the United States. The Japanise can attack the Russians and draw them west. Without the Americans, the Brits can not withstand the invasion. (There are several steps that the Germans must take to make the invasion possable) Without the British isles, no invasion of europe is possable. The Germans can chew up the Ruski's by making several other choises and win the war in the long run.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust Could Germany and the Axis powers have Won the Second World War? - Shooter 3/25/2005 4:59:45 PM

Shooter, if you can, borrow or buy the assessment by Peter Tsouras. Tsouras is a senior analyst at the US Army National Ground Intelligence Center. The books title is "Disaster at D Day, The Germans Defeat the Allies, June 1944" ISBN 0905-778-56-1 he makes some very coherent and cogent comments on any number of areas where D Day could have gone to the Germans based on daily event changes. It really was a close call - and thats excluding the Japanese factors. It's over 230 pages long, but is worth the "read". He starts it off with the disaster at Slapton Sands as a "taster".

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT

	News As History - March 22, 2010
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us