Was WW2 unwinnable for the Axis Powers?

[Gosick]

I always hear people saying that Germany had 0 chance to win?

Any historycels know if there's any truth to it?

 

[Deleted member 7240]

Hitler was a fucking idiot who tried to make military decisions that he had no business in making. If he just continued being a political leader and inspiring his people than perhaps they could have stood a better chance but even then as soon as the US joined in the war it was over for the Axis. America at the time was a industrial and united powerhouse. At full capacity they were making more ships, planes, tanks, and basically everything else more then all of the Axis powers COMBINED. Also the fact that they were across an entire ocean didn't help. You simply can't beat something like that. Also the Soviet Union was led by a literal monster who refused to evacuate civilians in besieged cities as he believed that it would make the soldiers "fight harder." It was omega over for Germany and the Axis tbh.

 

[SpearOfOrion]

as soon as the US joined in the war it was over for the Axis.

yeah, but it wasn't his fault, the U.S would join anyways.

I don't think pearl harbor was made by the US but they definitely let it happen to get an excuse to join the war.


OP to answer your question he could've won if they had developed the atom bomb. They were close as they had Werner Heisenberg (brilliant physicist) leading the nuclear program. They were better in terms of technology but at the end of the day were unlucky. Hitler shouldn't have prosecuted jews because a lot of good scientists like Einstein left and went on to create the atom bomb.

 

[Deleted member 7240]

yeah, but it wasn't his fault, the U.S would join anyways.

I don't think pearl harbor was made by the US but they definitely let it happen to get an excuse to join the war.
He shouldn't have prosecuted jews because a lot of good scientists like Einstein left and went on to create the atom bomb.

True FDR wanted to go to war but didn't wanna upset the American people as at the time the US was much more isolationist (which I think we should go back too ngl).

 

[Gosick]

Hitler was a fucking idiot who tried to make military decisions that he had no business in making. If he just continued being a political leader and inspiring his people than perhaps they could have stood a better chance but even then as soon as the US joined in the war it was over for the Axis. America at the time was a industrial and united powerhouse. At full capacity they were making more ships, planes, tanks, and basically everything else more then all of the Axis powers COMBINED. Also the fact that they were across an entire ocean didn't help. You simply can't beat something like that. Also the Soviet Union was led by a literal monster who refused to evacuate civilians in besieged cities as he believed that it would make the soldiers "fight harder." It was omega over for Germany and the Axis tbh.

Hitler made pretty good strategic decisions during operation Barbarossa tbh. His Generals originally wanted to go straight for Moscow but Moscow itself would not have made the invasion a success mainly because of Stalin. Stalin would never give up even if Moscow was captured, he gave 0 fucks about his people and would have kept pushing the nazis back. I feel Hitlers decision in going to stalingrad for the resources was a better idea. An attack of Moscow would have been Stalingrad demo anyway but atleast Stalingrad had some merit to it.

The main fuck up I feel the Germans did was putting so much resources into taking over England. I feel that they should have launched Barbarossa atleast 2 months earlier and better equip the soldiers to fight in the cold as well as putting in more resources into operation Barbarossa itself. They should have staked everything on Barbarossa tbh. If the invasion of the Soviet Union was a success, I feel that then they could have had a solid shot at invading Britain. Afterwards, then maybe they can open up a western front to the U.S.

 

[Deleted member 7240]

Hitler made pretty good strategic decisions during operation Barbarossa tbh. His Generals originally wanted to go straight for Moscow but Moscow itself would not have made the invasion a success mainly because of Stalin. Stalin would never give up even if Moscow was captured, he gave 0 fucks about his people and would have kept pushing the nazis back. I feel Hitlers decision in going to stalingrad for the resources was a better idea. An attack of Moscow would have been Stalingrad demo anyway but atleast Stalingrad had some merit to it.

The main fuck up I feel the Germans did was putting so much resources into taking over England. I feel that they should have launched Barbarossa atleast 2 months earlier and better equip the soldiers to fight in the cold as well as putting in more resources into operation Barbarossa itself. They should have staked everything on Barbarossa tbh. If the invasion of the Soviet Union was a success, I feel that then they could have had a solid shot at invading Britain. Afterwards, then maybe they can open up a western front to the U.S.

Hitler also refused to give reinforcements to the General who was leading the attack on Stalingrad. He had a personal vendetta against him I think that was the reason but idk. Hitler also made his best general (Erwin Rommel) to kill himself because he threatened if he didn't he would kill his family. Hitler was a fucking idiot who didn't listen to his advisors when they said that they weren't ready to take on the Soviet Union until 1942. You are right that a big mistake of Germany was putting a shit ton of resources on air raiding Britain but your kidding yourself if you think Germany could've successfully land invaded England. The Royal Fleet was the most powerful navy at the time which is why Germany had to rely on submarine warfare to even stand a chance but even that gimmick wouldn't have lasted forever. The only thing I could see working is a massive air raid with paratroopers into mainland England but that would be a logistical nightmare to supply after they hit the ground.

Same thing with the US, there is not a chance in hell that they could ever open a western front in mainland USA. The logistics are simply too much for a country like Germany could handle at the time. They were a powerhouse, but didn't have the industry, manpower, and raw resources like America had. But even if they somehow managed to get a foothold in the US they would be faced with one of the largest insurrection movements in history. Americans at the time were Nationalistic and had access to and knew how to use their weapons. I can't see the Axis in any scenario winning their war.

 

[Achilles]

Germans were too cocky and too indoctrinated by their own propaganda. Same exact shit with Japan. Japan was actually just retarded for Pearl Harbor. Germany was retarded for declaring war on the US.

Overall both nations should have and could just surrendered as soon as they could see that they were losing, which in Germany's case was like 1943. Sadly they were too stubborn and arrogant to do that

 

[Roping Subhuman]

It was winnable for Germany until they invaded Soviet Union.

For Japan and Italy it was over the moment they got involved, though situation for Japan and Italy were very different since Japan was already waging war in China and had border clashes with Soviet Union but Italy really had no business nor ability to declare war on any major power.

 

[Gargantuan]

It was winnable for Germany until they invaded Soviet Union.

For Japan and Italy it was over the moment they got involved, though situation for Japan and Italy were very different since Japan was already waging war in China and had border clashes with Soviet Union but Italy really had no business nor ability to declare war on any major power.

Wonder what would have happened if Japan had decided to invade the Eastern part of the Soviet Union after the Soviets withdrew their forces from Siberia to fight Germany in the West.

 

[Roping Subhuman]

Wonder what would have happened if Japan had decided to invade the Eastern part of the Soviet Union after the Soviets withdrew their forces from Siberia to fight Germany in the West.

Impossible to say what would've happened.

That would've required them getting out of China and obviously not getting in a war with the US.

 

[Roping Subhuman]

Germans were too cocky and too indoctrinated by their own propaganda. Same exact shit with Japan. Japan was actually just retarded for Pearl Harbor. Germany was retarded for declaring war on the US.

Overall both nations should have and could just surrendered as soon as they could see that they were losing, which in Germany's case was like 1943. Sadly they were too stubborn and arrogant to do that

It was already over for Germany by 1943.

You think USSR would've allowed them to sue for peace? no way.

 

[deer]

They could have won but they went too fat too fast

 

[Jagged0]

I always hear people saying that Germany had 0 chance to win?

Any historycels know if there's any truth to it?

Germany could’ve won if their leader wasn’t Hitler or he was just a figurehead without any actual power

 

[Roping Subhuman]

Germany could’ve won if their leader wasn’t Hitler or he was just a figurehead without any actual power

Germany wouldn't have started any wars in the first place if Hitler wasn't in power.

 

[MrGlutton]

ww2 was winnable for germany

hitler's generals were retarded, they did not have a strategic sense of war,

had they simply captured the caucasus oil fields at the start, the soviet union would be defeated.

 

[Roping Subhuman]

ww2 was winnable for germany

hitler's generals were retarded, they did not have a strategic sense of war,

had they simply captured the caucasus oil fields at the start, the soviet union would be defeated.

Man internet historians i swear..

You say hitler's generals were retarded then another guy says hitler himself was retarded.

In reality none of them were retarded and did all they could've done in their situation, also you're making a fatal mistake assuming they would have been able to advance that far during Operation Barbarossa, if hitler went for Caucasus oil fields during summer of 1941 it would've ended in a catastrophe.

 

[MrGlutton]

Man internet historians i swear..

You say hitler's generals were retarded then another guy says hitler himself was retarded.

In reality none of them were retarded and did all they could've done in their situation, also you're making a fatal mistake assuming they would have been able to advance that far during Operation Barbarossa, if hitler went for Caucasus oil fields during summer of 1941 it would've ended in a catastrophe.

NO YOU ARE WRONG.

they were against the initial plan made by Hitler to capture the oilfields in the first place, so they wasted their efforts on Moscow.

...also IF THEY captured Moscow initially, what makes you think they couldn't do it with the oilfields had they concentrated their efforts on it first?

go watch this video for a more detailed explanation.

 

[Roping Subhuman]

NO YOU ARE WRONG.

they were against the initial plan made by Hitler to capture the oilfields in the first place, so they wasted their efforts on Moscow.

...also IF THEY captured Moscow initially, what makes you think they couldn't do it with the oilfields had they concentrated their efforts on it first?

go watch this video for a more detailed explanation.

IF! there's your problem.

They couldn't capture Moscow so nothing says they would've captured Caucasus oil fields, consider by the time Germans reached anywhere near Don River was in late 1941 and early 1942. they had no chance of starting any sort of invasion into the Caucasus earlier and they wouldn't be able to be stationery so attacking Moscow was the only logical conclusion.

 

[Deleted member 5393]

If germany killed all the 500k british troops instead of letting them escape in dunkirk

Then go 100% against st petersburg instead of doing stupid shit in stalingrad. Also if hitler let his generals do what they wanted instead of being an idiot

100% victory

But USA would still have the atom bomb and could nuke germany.

 

[Gosick]

If germany killed all the 500k british troops instead of letting them escape in dunkirk

Then go 100% against st petersburg instead of doing stupid shit in stalingrad. Also if hitler let his generals do what they wanted instead of being an idiot

100% victory

But USA would still have the atom bomb and could nuke germany.

agreed, capturing those troops woould have 100 percent forced the british to surrender.

That would have allowed them to invade the soviet union much more efficiently.

 

[Patriot]

I always hear people saying that Germany had 0 chance to win?

Any historycels know if there's any truth to it?

"It was winnable for Germany until they invaded Soviet Union."

Dunno if you wanted to say by that what you said actually Roping Subhuman. But you are probably one of few people who read something here.

The point it - Hitler HAD to attack the USSR and forestall Stalin MASSIVE military invasion.

This is what Viktor Suvorov and other guys who dig deep into this stuff said. It was necessary.
USSR was losing heavily in the 1941 not only because superior German organisation and surprise, but because Stalin was indeed planing and assault "Operation Strom". This is why Soviet paratropers forces were biggest in the world (it was absolutely gargantuan in numbers), this is was Stalin destroyed "Stalin defence line" on western border, this is why Soviets were developing program of fast BT tanks (over 8k manufactured). These are no measures you undertake preparing for the defence.
IMHO.

Hitler could win war on the European continent if:

1. He would used better slavic and other anti-communists soldiers that were in pro-german forces. The fact is that he didn't know there were up to 1 MILLION soldiers in Vlasov Army (Russian Liberation Army) and similar forces. He was informed about this in 1944. He was against the idea of using Slavs to defeat USSR. And it was a bad idea. Because of the General Ost policy that treated most eastern Slavs as the untermenshen, the first emotional euphoria of many Slavs after Germans invaded quickly ended.

2. He would found a better way to stop US military support for the USSR. The USSR was virtually uninterruptedly tied to a drip with resources not only through the north by Archangielsk, but also from the south. We know from the US documents that they send them, only through Persia, enough equipment (food, even socks etc.) to equip 60, YES 60 DIVISIONS - this is the power that decides about the course of war.

"It has been estimated that American deliveries through the Persian Corridor to the USSR were sufficient, by U.S. Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line."

https://history.army.mil/html/books/008/8-1/CMH_Pub_8-1.pdf

http://worldatwarmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/WW32-sample.pdf

"Additionally, one of the most important factors to not overlook is trucks. To quote David Glantz from "When Titans Clashed": Lend-Lease trucks were particularly important to the Red Army, which was notoriously deficient in such equipment. By the end of the war, two out of every three Red Army trucks were foreign-built, including 409,000 cargo trucks and 47,000 Willys Jeeps. [Note, Glantz's 2/3 stat is a higher ratio than Ellis indicates, but Ellis still points to 2:1 import/production, and regardless there may be other caveats in play"

 

[penis3]

It was still winnable in 42, but when the entire Stalingrad/Caucasus front collapsed in early 43, that was pretty much the end for Germany.

As Glutton mentioned above, Germany was starving for fuel and capturing the south in 1942 would have given them a lot of Soviet Oil to fill their huge deficit. Not to mention making the land lease from UK/USA to the Soviets through the caspian sea impossible, and without the oil the Soviets tanks and planes be a sitting duck. Germans ran out of fuel in October during Barbarossa, and it's also one of the main reasons why attacking along the entire front was no longer possible in 1942.

German generals are without a doubt some of the most overrated in the history of warfare, Hitler should have had most of them executed and sacked, rather than trusting them and giving in to their strategies. Hitler made a lot of good decisions during the war, if it wasn't for his initiative, and forward thinking of accepting Mansteins's plan of killing france through the ardennes, then France most likely would have held out.

During Barbarossa the main focus was supposed to be in the south but again it was sabotaged, by the army High Command cos muh Moscow.

The stand and fight orders from 43-45 were also sound, since it's not like the Germans could retreat and retreat since they lacked fuel to even move their motorized units. The German army was a sitting duck and most of it wasn't even motorized, but muh historians argue that this was wrong.

 

[Gosick]

It was still winnable in 42, but when the entire Stalingrad/Caucasus front collapsed in early 43, that was pretty much the end for Germany.

As Glutton mentioned above, Germany was starving for fuel and capturing the south in 1942 would have given them a lot of Soviet Oil to fill their huge deficit. Not to mention making the land lease from UK/USA to the Soviets through the caspian sea impossible, and without the oil the Soviets tanks and planes be a sitting duck. Germans ran out of fuel in October during Barbarossa, and it's also one of the main reasons why attacking along the entire front was no longer possible in 1942.

German generals are without a doubt some of the most overrated in the history of warfare, Hitler should have had most of them executed and sacked, rather than trusting them and giving in to their strategies. Hitler made a lot of good decisions during the war, if it wasn't for his initiative, and forward thinking of accepting Mansteins's plan of killing france through the ardennes, then France most likely would have held out.

During Barbarossa the main focus was supposed to be in the south but again it was sabotaged, by the army High Command cos muh Moscow.

The stand and fight orders from 43-45 were also sound, since it's not like the Germans could retreat and retreat since they lacked fuel to even move their motorized units. The German army was a sitting duck and most of it wasn't even motorized, but muh historians argue that this was wrong.

Agreed man. Historians just bash the fuck out Hitler can say he was incompetent and that the war was lost to begin with but those ugly fucks dont realize that the same logic can be used for any "losers" in history.

Hitler had pretty shitty generals, I agree. Imagine if he had Napoleon on his side.

 

[penis3]

Agreed man. Historians just bash the fuck out Hitler can say he was incompetent and that the war was lost to begin with but those ugly fucks dont realize that the same logic can be used for any "losers" in history.

Hitler had pretty shitty generals, I agree. Imagine if he had Napoleon on his side.

Yea man, Unlike Stalin who had generals he could depend on, and he mostly let them plan and have a free reign in the conduct of the war.

The German Generals after the war sold their sob story to the allies, us= good, hitler=bad, no one is going to obviously paint themselves in a bad light, and Hitler wasn't there to defend himself.

It's kind of hilarious how the modern day narrative of the war, is taken mostly from the accounts of these same generals.

They also painted the Soviets as literally a horde with unlimited manpower, which wasn't true. It wasn't until 1943 when the Soviets finally gained a manpower advantage on the entire front. The Red army by 44-45 was possibly also the greatest army ever assembled in the history of warfare. They could have blitzed the entire Europe in 45 if they wanted to.

 

[Deleted member 2527]

If Germany had managed to ally with the UK, they could have easily have won. Because the commonwealth nations of Canada, Australia, USA, and New Zealand would have joined the Axis due to their special relationship ship with the UK.

by then it would not have been much of a world war but instead an Anglo-German alliance against the USSR which would have been an easy win, even against the red horde assembled in 44/45.

king Edward actually visited hitler and was a nazi sympathiser. However he was forced to abdicate because he wanted to marry a divorcee.

 

[Patriot]

Agreed man. Historians just bash the fuck out Hitler can say he was incompetent and that the war was lost to begin with but those ugly fucks dont realize that the same logic can be used for any "losers" in history.

Hitler had pretty shitty generals, I agree. Imagine if he had Napoleon on his side.

What do you think about my points?

 

[Gosick]

"It was winnable for Germany until they invaded Soviet Union."

Dunno if you wanted to say by that what you said actually Roping Subhuman. But you are probably one of few people who read something here.

The point it - Hitler HAD to attack the USSR and forestall Stalin MASSIVE military invasion.

This is what Viktor Suvorov and other guys who dig deep into this stuff said. It was necessary.
USSR was losing heavily in the 1941 not only because superior German organisation and surprise, but because Stalin was indeed planing and assault "Operation Strom". This is why Soviet paratropers forces were biggest in the world (it was absolutely gargantuan in numbers), this is was Stalin destroyed "Stalin defence line" on western border, this is why Soviets were developing program of fast BT tanks (over 8k manufactured). These are no measures you undertake preparing for the defence.
IMHO.

Hitler could win war on the European continent if:

1. He would used better slavic and other anti-communists soldiers that were in pro-german forces. The fact is that he didn't know there were up to 1 MILLION soldiers in Vlasov Army (Russian Liberation Army) and similar forces. He was informed about this in 1944. He was against the idea of using Slavs to defeat USSR. And it was a bad idea. Because of the General Ost policy that treated most eastern Slavs as the untermenshen, the first emotional euphoria of many Slavs after Germans invaded quickly ended.

2. He would found a better way to stop US military support for the USSR. The USSR was virtually uninterruptedly tied to a drip with resources not only through the north by Archangielsk, but also from the south. We know from the US documents that they send them, only through Persia, enough equipment (food, even socks etc.) to equip 60, YES 60 DIVISIONS - this is the power that decides about the course of war.

"It has been estimated that American deliveries through the Persian Corridor to the USSR were sufficient, by U.S. Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line."

https://history.army.mil/html/books/008/8-1/CMH_Pub_8-1.pdf

http://worldatwarmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/WW32-sample.pdf

"Additionally, one of the most important factors to not overlook is trucks. To quote David Glantz from "When Titans Clashed": Lend-Lease trucks were particularly important to the Red Army, which was notoriously deficient in such equipment. By the end of the war, two out of every three Red Army trucks were foreign-built, including 409,000 cargo trucks and 47,000 Willys Jeeps. [Note, Glantz's 2/3 stat is a higher ratio than Ellis indicates, but Ellis still points to 2:1 import/production, and regardless there may be other caveats in play"

"The point it - Hitler HAD to attack the USSR and forestall Stalin MASSIVE military invasion."



The soviets WERE NOT gathering massive amounts of troops at the german border. On the 22nd of June 1941, the Soviets had a whooping 40 divisions on the whole German-Soviet border, out of a total of 170 divisions stationed in the Western Soviet Union, of the total of 230 divisions of the entire Red Army. In comparison, the Germans had mobilized over a million soldiers on the border with the Soviet Union. That is not massing troops at the border. Stalin was repeatedly informed by virtually everyone around him that the germans were preparing for an attack, he expressely refused to make any big moves of soldiers to the border in order to not provoke the germans into invading.

Stalin was going to invade Germany at some point but not that early on into the war, He was playing it safe basically waiting for Germany to tire out against England before launching an invasion considering how unprepared the USSR was militarily at that point in time. I do think Hitler was in a iffy position in regards to invading. The USSR invasion was the main goal of the Nazi Regime. They would have preferred to have dealth with England first before launching the land invasion of the Soviet Union and fighting on multiple fronts, but they were in a bit of a bind since they lost the battle of britain which essentially meant an invasion would have been impossible to force England to surrender. Hence, why they launched Barbarossa when they could since it was the best time do so considering how unprepared the USSR was, and they had to do it at that point in time or else it would be to late since the Winter was coming which would give the Soviets more time to prep up their troops.

I do believe Hitler should have launched the Invasion 2 months earlier rather then sending in troops to help out the incompetent Italy. Im not sure how much of a impact it would have overall though. Its unfortunate Britain hadnt surrendered after the fall of france. That played a huge role in Germany's failure to beat the USSR


"He would used better slavic and other anti-communists soldiers that were in pro-german forces. The fact is that he didn't know there were up to 1 MILLION soldiers in Vlasov Army (Russian Liberation Army) and similar forces. He was informed about this in 1944. He was against the idea of using Slavs to defeat USSR. And it was a bad idea. Because of the General Ost policy that treated most eastern Slavs as the untermenshen, the first emotional euphoria of many Slavs after Germans invaded quickly ended. "

I agree. This was a huge blunder. But Because they were Nazis. From the very start, Hitler's desire and dream was to invade the USSR. All of his work in Germany and Europe was exclusively for this war of extermination against the Soviet Union for living space and resources. The war itself against the Soviets would not have happened without the nazi ideology being a thing. The Soviets realized that Stalin was the lesser of 2 evils so they chose to side with him. If Hitler had the intentions of invading under the notion of being Liberators rather then invaders, then they could have caused massive civil unrest within the USSR with many siding with Hitler rather then Stalin.

I do wish Hitler was more strategic in how he could have manipulated the Soviets to turning against Stalin by invading as liberators. Then, they could have done what they wished after the war had been won. Im not sure if this would be possible though lol, Im just speculating.


"He would found a better way to stop US military support for the USSR. The USSR was virtually uninterruptedly tied to a drip with resources not only through the north by Archangielsk, but also from the south. We know from the US documents that they send them, only through Persia, enough equipment (food, even socks etc.) to equip 60, YES 60 DIVISIONS - this is the power that decides about the course of war."

I agree the lend lease really was fucking with the Germans since it was giving the Soviets alot of sustainability in the war compared to how overstretched the Germans were with supplies etc. Capturing Stalingrad would have been a key factor into ending the war and the lend lease. That one battle decided the fate of the Reich.

 

[Gosick]

Yea man, Unlike Stalin who had generals he could depend on, and he mostly let them plan and have a free reign in the conduct of the war.

The German Generals after the war sold their sob story to the allies, us= good, hitler=bad, no one is going to obviously paint themselves in a bad light, and Hitler wasn't there to defend himself.

It's kind of hilarious how the modern day narrative of the war, is taken mostly from the accounts of these same generals.

They also painted the Soviets as literally a horde with unlimited manpower, which wasn't true. It wasn't until 1943 when the Soviets finally gained a manpower advantage on the entire front. The Red army by 44-45 was possibly also the greatest army ever assembled in the history of warfare. They could have blitzed the entire Europe in 45 if they wanted to.

The Soviets were fucking monsters tbh. Only the Germans were capable of messing with them.

They could have easily taken the entire of Europe. The only reason they didnt were because of those nukes I think. Churchill was fucking afraid of how powerful they were which was why he had came up with operation unthinkable.

If Britain had surrendered after the fall of france and the U.S werent acting like jews, then the USSR would have been crushed by the Nazis. Its sad that they sided with the communists.

 

[Ritalincell]

Short answer:
It would have been winnable in an ideal scenario where Hitler wasn't insane and made more intelligent decisions. But the way the war was fought it was impossible to win.