So what would have it taken for it to be possible for the Axis to win militarywise?
- Thread starter DEFCON
- Start date
Dont declare war on the US. In fact do your very very best to keep the US neutral happy and quiet.
archaeogeek
Banned
That; there was no way Barbarossa could succeed, no way Japan could withstand the Soviets, Britain and America separately, let alone at once, thanks to strategic fuel reserves rated in months, etc. The Axis was riding on impossible amounts of luck and got victory disease.
The Soviet Union could outproduce the european parts of the axis on its own, America could outproduce Europe on its own. Russia could trade land for time: it had almost 20 times the surface area of metropolitan France and just the European part of the USSR was 6 or 7 times that.
First of all, it depends on what you call victory, for instance a negotiated peace with some of the gains they made can be called a victory, or do you only call it a victory if all your enemy's are truely defeated?
I would say that keeping the USA neutral and i mean truely neutral would give the axis about an 50% chance of takeing some sort of victory with that chance increasing if britain does indeed make peace with them at some point.
however outright victory against the WALLIES and the soviets even without the USA is kinda ASB matirial.
I would say that keeping the USA neutral and i mean truely neutral would give the axis about an 50% chance of takeing some sort of victory with that chance increasing if britain does indeed make peace with them at some point.
however outright victory against the WALLIES and the soviets even without the USA is kinda ASB matirial.
Solomaxwell6
Banned
This is the key question. "What is victory?" The Nazis getting everything the wanted was ASB. But if they didn't try Barbarossa, defeated the French, and then stared at Britain across the channel for a few years, they could get a pretty decent negotiated peace. Occupied France would be liberated (minus some territorial concessions), but Germany would be able to keep its gains in Poland, Czechia, and Austria. They basically just need to change their goal from "conquer half the fucking world" to "unite the German peoples." The latter is far more palatable to Britain... Can you imagine a D-Day with no America and no Eastern Front?
The subsequent question is how long is the Soviet Union going to stand idly by with a very powerful Nazi Germany directly on its border?
1. Do not launch the Battle of Britain and focus on the Meditteranean instead from july 1940 onward.
2. Do not declare war on the US and by extension do not ally yourself to Japan at all and instead denounce them as "yellow untermenschen" once they attack Pearl Harbor. Support China a lot in this scenario!
3. Do not treat the conquered people in the Soviet Union like crap. They hate Stalin and will defect to you if you let them.
4. Have Hitler not in charge by the time Barbarossa comes, if it's still launched at all. If it does, accept a Brest-Litovsk v2.0. That's plenty of Lebensraum IMHO.
5. Don't have that baffoon Ribbentrop in charge of foreign affairs.
6. Earlier mass production of weapons in war industry mode. Also, standardisation of weapons. No five tank models and tank detroyers. Stick with the Panzer IV and upgrade from there. Then switch to the Panther once the bugs are worked out. No Tiger, Tiger II and certainly no Maus (wastes of resources and man hours which could be used to build multiple Panzer IVs and Panthers).
2. Do not declare war on the US and by extension do not ally yourself to Japan at all and instead denounce them as "yellow untermenschen" once they attack Pearl Harbor. Support China a lot in this scenario!
3. Do not treat the conquered people in the Soviet Union like crap. They hate Stalin and will defect to you if you let them.
4. Have Hitler not in charge by the time Barbarossa comes, if it's still launched at all. If it does, accept a Brest-Litovsk v2.0. That's plenty of Lebensraum IMHO.
5. Don't have that baffoon Ribbentrop in charge of foreign affairs.
6. Earlier mass production of weapons in war industry mode. Also, standardisation of weapons. No five tank models and tank detroyers. Stick with the Panzer IV and upgrade from there. Then switch to the Panther once the bugs are worked out. No Tiger, Tiger II and certainly no Maus (wastes of resources and man hours which could be used to build multiple Panzer IVs and Panthers).
What is the source of these figures? AFAIK Germany alone has bigger industrial capacity than Soviet Union.
Last edited:
Stalin was planning to invade somewhere in the 1942-1943 timeframe.
Back to the OP: Alien Fricking Space Bats. The Axis might have been able to achieve political "victory" with a series of negotiated settlements and military stalemates (though why anyone would negotiate with Hitler after his action in 1939... still, politicians can be quite impressively dumb), but a military victory is beyond them.
The Axis lacked the military/logistical ability to defeat the UK when it was essentially alone. In the US, FDR was champing at the bit and looking for a causus belli. In the USSR Stalin is getting the Red Army ready to invade.
A POD early enough to allow an Axis victory is going to butterfly away WWII as we recognize it.
Oooh, I get to cite my favorite internet link again!
http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
According to this, you're right. In 1937 Germany is slightly ahead of the USSR on its own. Italy adds to its edge, and none of that is counting France.
I've yet to see a statistical refutation of this data, but I'd be very happy to look at anything anyone has, especially from other years closer to the war.
Data for 1937 from the above link:
[SIZE=+1]Country[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]% of Total Warmaking Potential[/SIZE] United States 41.7% Germany 14.4% USSR 14.0% UK 10.2% France 4.2% Japan 3.5% Italy 2.5% Seven Powers (total) (90.5%)
There are only a very limited number of ways for Germany to win something recognisable as WW2.
1. Britain might have made peace in Summer 1940 after the fall of France assuming some POD or PODs such as Churchill killed when HMS Nelson was torpedoed in 1939 https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=3868204#post3868204 and the BEF captured. The best guess is that Britain would have fought on under any leadership but this is a fairly frequently used idea.
2. I once tried a successful Sealion timeline but these are unpopular!
3. A POD leading to a strongly isolationist American President such as, for example, Taft being elected in 1940, would leave Britain with great difficulties in continuing the war. We could go all the way back to “The Man in the High Castle” for examples.
All of the above could leave Germany free to attack the USSR in 1941 with a fair chance of success. There remain two less respectable possibilities:
4. Germany continues the war against Britain, for example, in the Mediterranean while trying to avoid war with either the USA or the USSR. The hope is that the British lose hope and make peace before either of the USA or the USSR enters the war against Germany. This could have got off to a good start in the 1939-40 period if the Anglo-French had been daft enough to bomb Baku (they considered it). This was Ribbentrop's preferred strategy.
5. Germany attacks the USSR in 1941 and wins. This needs Hitler and perhaps Germany to be rather different from their OTL character. I tried to suggest possible strategies here. However, even if the USSR is defeated, an Anglo-American alliance will still win if they decide to fight. Hitler's hope is that fighting will look much more costly than OTL.
There all done just by recycling my own posts
! Perhaps we need a FAQ!
1. Britain might have made peace in Summer 1940 after the fall of France assuming some POD or PODs such as Churchill killed when HMS Nelson was torpedoed in 1939 https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=3868204#post3868204 and the BEF captured. The best guess is that Britain would have fought on under any leadership but this is a fairly frequently used idea.
2. I once tried a successful Sealion timeline but these are unpopular!
3. A POD leading to a strongly isolationist American President such as, for example, Taft being elected in 1940, would leave Britain with great difficulties in continuing the war. We could go all the way back to “The Man in the High Castle” for examples.
All of the above could leave Germany free to attack the USSR in 1941 with a fair chance of success. There remain two less respectable possibilities:
4. Germany continues the war against Britain, for example, in the Mediterranean while trying to avoid war with either the USA or the USSR. The hope is that the British lose hope and make peace before either of the USA or the USSR enters the war against Germany. This could have got off to a good start in the 1939-40 period if the Anglo-French had been daft enough to bomb Baku (they considered it). This was Ribbentrop's preferred strategy.
5. Germany attacks the USSR in 1941 and wins. This needs Hitler and perhaps Germany to be rather different from their OTL character. I tried to suggest possible strategies here. However, even if the USSR is defeated, an Anglo-American alliance will still win if they decide to fight. Hitler's hope is that fighting will look much more costly than OTL.
There all done just by recycling my own posts
! Perhaps we need a FAQ!Snake Featherston
Banned
Co-operation of the same effectiveness the Allies had when they were at their peak of strength relative to the Allies for a common strategic goal.
That alone is not enough. The combined industrial power of the USA, the Soviet Union and Great Britain dwarfs that of the Axis powers.
Yup. As noted above, those three nations have over 65% of the GLOBAL war-making capability in 1937.
Germany, Italy, and Japan between them have 20.4%. Add in France's 4.2% to account for European conquests.
The Axis are still outmatched over 2.5 to 1. The US alone outmatches the three Axis powers by 2:1.
Snake Featherston
Banned
In the long term, sure. If the Axis co-operate when say, Germany has enough industrial capacity to outdo the Soviets and UK twofold and Japan has much of the world's natural supply of tin, rubber, and oil at that point......and Gridley, simply having more than the other guy is not enough. You have to use it effectively.
When did the former happen? I'd like to see some numbers, since conflicting data has been posted on this very thread.
As to the latter... the US was able to supply its own needs for oil, and it will be taking the rubber belt and its other conquests away from Japan in short order. The rest of the Axis can do almost nothing to help Japan; they're half a world apart. Even if you magically move entire Luftwaffe units (ground as well as air echelons), or the Regia Marina to the Pacific, there's no way to keep them supplied, and they're outmatched by the USN anyway.
The Axis can't defeat the Allied states IF they remain what they were IOTL, a bunch of incompentent murdering thugs with delusions of racial superiority. All the things that have to be done to have half a chance of victory can't happen.
Hitler has to avoid getting into a multi-front war. Non-starter since he was hell bent on destroying the USSR
Hitler has to treat the people of the Ukraine and other European parts of the occuppied USSR as an asset. Non-starter since the entire point of invading into the East was to gain land and wipe out the "Slav".
Hitler has to avoid, at all costs, engaging the U.S. Can't happen unless the Reich is willing to give complete freedom of the seas to American merchat ships. Do that, the British will eventually wear the Reich out.
Japan has to avoid fighting the U.S. under ANY circumstances. Not possible unless Japan is willing to stay out of the DEI and the rest of the Southern Resource Area. If Japan does that it ceases to be an industrail nation in 1942 when the oil runs out.
Hitler has to avoid getting into a multi-front war. Non-starter since he was hell bent on destroying the USSR
Hitler has to treat the people of the Ukraine and other European parts of the occuppied USSR as an asset. Non-starter since the entire point of invading into the East was to gain land and wipe out the "Slav".
Hitler has to avoid, at all costs, engaging the U.S. Can't happen unless the Reich is willing to give complete freedom of the seas to American merchat ships. Do that, the British will eventually wear the Reich out.
Japan has to avoid fighting the U.S. under ANY circumstances. Not possible unless Japan is willing to stay out of the DEI and the rest of the Southern Resource Area. If Japan does that it ceases to be an industrail nation in 1942 when the oil runs out.
In my list of possible ways for the Axis to win, I should have added the possibility that Japan fights Britain without attacking the USA and that the USA does not declare war on Japan. The nastiest possibility for Britain is perhaps the earliest. If the Asama Maru Incident were by some strange accident turned into a Anglo-French versus Japan war, the British Fleet would be diverted to the Far East.
We could imagine that the would be no Operation Wilfred and hence no Operation Weserübung. Thus Germany would not suffer such heavy naval loses and American opinion might be more isolationist, especially in Mid-West areas with many Scandinavian immigrants.
Now if Singapore falls in May 1940, assuming that Japan can land on the Malaya Coast in early March with the support of their aircraft carriers (there might be weather related problems but climate only gives probabilities), we could have a collision of the British and Japanese fleets just as the French surrender. If Britain suffers a serious naval defeat, loses its French ally and the BEF all at the same time as the Italians enter the war and on top of losing Singapore, they might just give up.
Not probable but about as likely as the Trent War timelines.
We could imagine that the would be no Operation Wilfred and hence no Operation Weserübung. Thus Germany would not suffer such heavy naval loses and American opinion might be more isolationist, especially in Mid-West areas with many Scandinavian immigrants.
Now if Singapore falls in May 1940, assuming that Japan can land on the Malaya Coast in early March with the support of their aircraft carriers (there might be weather related problems but climate only gives probabilities), we could have a collision of the British and Japanese fleets just as the French surrender. If Britain suffers a serious naval defeat, loses its French ally and the BEF all at the same time as the Italians enter the war and on top of losing Singapore, they might just give up.
Not probable but about as likely as the Trent War timelines.
Riain
Banned
The Axis lost the war at the highest level; with poor alliance politics and too little too late mobilisation of total war economies for example. Changing these things, which are very hard to change, gets you victory in the Med and the capture of Moscow befre the US enters the war, and the basis for a compromise peace.
Rebel
Banned
Well, even if the allies make peace around 1940-1941 (1941 because the Axis may well be on the Suez by then, or close enough to force peace), Hitler would still have to deal with Stalin's increasingly bold demands for concessions in eastern Europe. Turkey would be of particular interest to Stalin, and hitler certainly wouldn't accept Soviet control of the Bosphorous even if it brought Turkey onto his side. So I'd say a German-Soviet War in 1942 or 1943, with a much better prepared Soviet Union ( Of course, their doctrines still are awful, but their equipment and commanders have likely improved quite a bit) facing down Germany. I'd say they win by 1947 after an extremely bloody fight, but as soon as germany starts losing the allies will rejoin the fight to grab what the Soviets can't.