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

bsl RE:Successful bomb-plot scenario? 9/21/2004 10:41:49 PM

It mostly a political call. By 1944, there were agreements in place between Roosevelt and Churchill, otoh, and Stalin, otoh. The Allies were commited to continue till "unconditional surrender" of Germany. I doubt Churchill, and, much more, Roosevelt, would have sold the Soviets out. We might have gotten a new Big Three Conference at which these two tried to persuade Stalin to modify the war aims, but Stalin is unlikely to have given in when the changes would have limited the Soviets, but not the US and UK.

Quote Reply

Twilight1978 RE:Successful bomb-plot scenario? 9/21/2004 11:17:02 PM

"It mostly a political call. By 1944, there were agreements in place between Roosevelt and Churchill, otoh, and Stalin, otoh. The Allies were commited to continue till "unconditional surrender" of Germany." Still,if the Germans were no longer fighting on the western front, and had in fact allowed the allies to occupy the rhineland, plus were releasing prisoners over the Rhine, what would be the allied justifications for staying in the war?

Quote Reply

Desert Rat Axix could have won. 9/22/2004 9:12:24 AM

If the following events had happened then i feel that the axis would have won WW2: Germans attacking Russia earlier in year, this would have allowed them to take Moscow, since it was only really the weather that decisively stopped the Wermacht. Also, if Germany had invaded Egypt in 1940 of 1939, then it would cut off UK from most of oil in middle east. Japan occupying Hawaii, using it as a supply base+airfield. This allows them to control Pacific for long period of time. Japanese landings in USA would have been a major prob US may not have been able to deal with. Think about if these happened. Remove Russia from equation, them allied invasion in Europe would have been five times as tough a fight. Jap. incursions on US soil could have damaged US war efort irreperably. Either way, I'm glad the Axis lost. They really were evil B*****ds.

Quote Reply

fall out Axix would've won if... 9/22/2004 12:11:21 PM

they did the following: 1. Donitz was allowed the 200 u-boats he requested from Hitler (3 heavy battleships, amongst other surface vessels, were built and 1 heavy battleship is about the material, manpower, money of 50 u-boats) * Had Hitler done this, Op Sealion would not be needed. Allied shipping were at un-sustainable losses in most of 1940-42, and the Germans started off with little more than 20 boats or so! # That's Britain out of the way (they are not allowed to re-arm, nor have an airforce, nor large navy and they have to supply Germany with various materials; Hitler never really wanted to invaded England, if he needed to, you would've, but given this situation, he would be able to cut his losses and prepare for Op Barbarossa) 2. Concentrated on taking Moscow in '41; instead of diverting several divisions from Army Group Centre to the other armies and consistantly interdicting all the time. * Had Hitler done this or more to the point, allowed his generals; ie Guderian, Monstein (spelling?), Army Group Centre would certainly take Moscow and all the prizes that go with it (national pride, the centre of the transportation network, bulk of the Soviet armies, bulk of the Soviet govt). remember, the Germans dont have to fight in the Balkans or Greece, Crete, North Africa, etc. The germans were about 2 weeks away from taking moscow in 41 and those operations above put them back a couple of months. # that's it, they've won! with moscow taken, the caucus oil fields and the ural industrial centre's were there for the taking, the Germans whilst sustaining considerable losses, would've been able to press on as they have only one front and the russians would be deteriorating rapidly; govt wise, military wise, and popular support wise too (even though Hitler's rough tactics didnt help, im sure the Russians would have just about had enough). If need be, Germany could completly take over Britain as per the peace treaty, they would not have suffice defences to hold off a much stronger Wermacht, this may (or may not) bring the US into direct involvement against the Germans but with ALL of Europe taken, incl Russia and the UK, where would they stage an attack?? Nigh impossible, even for the US! That's my 2 cents worth. :)

Quote Reply

Ehran RE:Axix could have won. 9/22/2004 12:46:47 PM

Japan occupying Hawaii, using it as a supply base+airfield. This allows them to control Pacific for long period of time. Japanese landings in USA would have been a major prob US may not have been able to deal with. occupying hawaii or at least useful parts of it would have given the japs an unsinkable air craft carrier but far more importantly it would have been a logistical nightmare for the usn. one of the more potent weapons against japan was the us sub fleets campaign against their logistical train. without hawaii as a forward base this becomes a great deal more difficult to run. as for the japs invading the mainland that would have been just plain suicidal. the us army may have had crappy tanks but they had LOTS of them. the japs had next to no anti tank capacity so i expect they would have fared very poorly at maintaining their landings.

Quote Reply

bigfella RE:Axix could have won. 9/22/2004 2:56:54 PM

"Japan occupying Hawaii, using it as a supply base+airfield. This allows them to control Pacific for long period of time. Japanese landings in USA would have been a major prob US may not have been able to deal with." First part sort of correct, second part WAY off. Taking Hawaii would certainly have slowed down America's offensives. it would have placed a much greater emphasis on using the Aelutian islands, New Caledonia & Australia to support subs in particular. What you need to understand is just how big those American fleets were by '43/44. They basically carried an entire army & airforce by sea. Japan was stretched thin as it was, having to defend Hawaii would have made it even harder. America would have re-taken the islands by early '44 at the latest I think, probably at the expense of a slower advance on the Philippines in OTL. Also remember that from early '44 the US began to scale back its naval construction program because they just didn't need any more ships. It is scary just how big they could have become. Any japanese landings on mainland US soil beyond commando raids were NEVER going to happen. America is a LONG way from Hawaii. Japanese logistics were already crap, they often couldn't supply troops much closer to home. Trying to mount any sort of op in America would have had no chance. There is also no major landfall between Hawaii & the US, so everything would have to be caried the whole way by ship. Japan just didn't have that sort of lift capacity. Supply lines that long would have broken immediately as US subs, surface units & air took the Japanese fleets to pieces.

Quote Reply

stratego RE:Could Germany and the Axis powers have Won the Second World War? 9/22/2004 10:39:41 PM

In his book on WWII, von Manstien analyzed the possibility of Germany invading Britain without air superiority. His conclusion? Germany would have had a 50% chance of success. I will try to get the book from the library and post the basics of the analysis, if I remember. I didn't find it completley convincing. The positive side of his credentials is he was one of the greatest generals of all time. The negative side is, this was mainly not an infrantry problem (outside his expertise). I agree with others that one key to the problem is figuring out if Germany finishes conquering Russia after getting Moscow (which they "should have had", either via an early start, as posted (though thanks to the Brits in Greece on that) or just by being focused on task. It was Hitler's intervention with Guderian that ruined the focus. However, when analyzing the aftermath of a German taking of Moscow. Don't forget the second nutcase---Stalin. He had a definate tendency toward panic, constantly intervened disasterously (the "no retreat" policy), etc. If you grant a Soviet capability to win after losing Moscow in a material sense, can you concieve of Stalin not completely losing it in that situation?

Quote Reply

bigfella RE:Could Germany and the Axis powers have Won the Second World War? 9/22/2004 11:53:25 PM

Stratego, I would be interested to hear how Manstein thought he was going to get his forces onto the beaches and keep them supplied with or without air superiority (see my post). The 'Moscow question' is the biggie, of course. One of the problems facing the Germans in '41 was long, exposed supply lines and slow logistic follow-up to the fast panzer units. The risk of running straight at Moscow is that you leave vast numbers of Russians in the south. They probably wouldn't have counter-attacked effectively (though at the time you might not want to take that gamble), but they might have been able to retreat in better condition. There is a very good chance that if Moscow falls so does Stalin. I suspect at least some of his colleagues would have done him in. This might actually work in their favour, since I suspect Stalin would have cut some sort of a deal. While Moscow was important, Russia could have fought on effectively without it. The bulk of the industrial & manpower resources used to defeat Germany would still have been available, perhaps more if some of those armies in the South could have retreated. My bet is Zhukov and the other senior generals would have been left to fight the war as they saw fit (to be fair, Stalin pretty much let them do this after '41).

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust RE:Could Germany and the Axis powers have Won the Second World War? 9/23/2004 12:24:36 AM

If you read Peter Fleming "Sea Lion" you'll see that there is no way that Hitler was going to be able to get troops on shore in a sufficvient time. There were only 6 possible landing points, and the Brits has everyone of those covered off by a minimum of 4 divisions with 2 in reserve. At the close of dunkirk they had over a quarter of a million men including australians, canadians, dutch, belgians, norwegians, frenchmen, poles etc... The europeans in that group were determined to keep the germans off the beaches. On top of that, the British had some of those beachheads pumped full of petroleum and oil mixtures that were going to be torched off by a flare pistol and petrol bombs at the merest sign of an invasion. Goering at that stage was not a total incompetent, and even he quietly recognised that airpower was needed to suppress englisg resolve, and there were doubts about their capacity to achieve that in a timely manner. Hitler for quite a while was convinced that he could negotiate the Brits into a cessation of hostility - so he never seriously dealt with the issue of planning an invasion to its ultimate conclusion. Germany also only had two real parachute divisions. Numerically she had 5, but they had been decimated in Operation Yellow. He not only therefore did not have airspace dominance, he didn't have sealane control and he certainly didn't have sufficient airborne to take the heads and hold ground for other landforces. Not being able to take England alters the capacity for Germany to win by a considerable margin. It makes all future battles co-contingent on having a successful alliance with Japan. To some extent, this is also negated as the Russians were aware of all German movements and battle intents since they signing of Rapollo. They had breached the German security codes and so knew years in advance of forthcoming treachery on Hitlers part. For the germans to win, you therefore have to remove Russian intelligence victories scored from 1932 on, and you also need to take england.

Quote Reply

fall out i still think you ignoring an important point... 9/23/2004 11:28:19 AM

Donitz! I still believe that had Hitler followed Donitz's request of 200 u-boats come war, the poms would have NO choice at all but to seek out a peace treaty; and IMO it would be alot like the Brest-Litovsk treaty in WW1, Britain would not be occupied but would have severe limits on her armed forces, would have to give up some, not all, of her overseas possessions (North Africa and Mid-East and possibly India for Japan on the condition that Japan co-operate with the war aginst Russia) and would have to supply Germany with pretty much anything useful and in surplus (no aid allowed from America or at least not anything to do with military related equipement and materials) As i have stated ealier, the damage only a handful (in relative terms) of u-boats caused to allied shipping during the 'happy times' around '40-42 was massive and meant britain was forced into rationing, etc, imagine what 200 or so u-boats would do early on when allied naval forces were un-prepared for the underwater menace!! as it is, after the fall of france, the british cabinet voted on continuing the war and the no vote was defeated by one vote; churchill, how do you think they would react to being choked into submission!? With Britain out of the road, Germany and Italy have complete control of North Africa and the Mid-East and not only would the Germans had not expended many divisions, including many of their crack para's in crete. The Germans would be in a MUCH better position in '41 than in the real history. Greater raw material's, esp oil, greater numbers and only one front, in this alternative history, Hitler could even strip Army Group Centre of some of their firepower but they would still manage to be able to take Moscow (or at least lay seige to it) and take out the Russian armies massing in and around Moscow (the German High Command knew the Russians would throw everything into the defence of the Capital and in doing so seal their fate; IMO). As someone else has mentioed about a real alliance with Japan, had the Germans taken Moscow and possibly Stalin, the Japs would more than likely go for their 'northern push' instead of the navy's 'southern push', had they done this, the forces they would encounter would be weaker than in the actual history and whilst they still would get a bloody nose, Russia come the end of summer 42, would more than likely have capitulated if it hadn't already done so; esp seeing as though the Germans would be able to take the Caucuses with a southern drive from the European theatre and a northern push from German forces stationed in the Mid-East. there you go, Germany wins, if the US direct involvement was looking ominous, Germany could mass on the channel and take out Britain with relative ease and the US would have NO bases to launch an attack against Fortress Europe. Remember the treaty would mean Britain would have a small and ill-equiped armed forces and Germany would be even stronger, despite getting bloodied in Russia. What do you think?? Fall Out :)

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