How Could the Axis Won the War ?

By getting help from space aliens.

Secret jewish technology

This is actually a valid point. If Hitler and the Nazis would not have been antisemitic, then they would have the German Jewish scientists developing new technology and weapons for them. Now the Allies had better German scientist working for them than the Nazis had.

They couldn't.

Sealion could never have worked. There is no "blitzkrieg" when you have to tow barges at 5-6 knots across 30-100 miles of open water and then have troops with no amphibious doctrine or training embark on contested beachheads. The British had lost much of their Army, but their Navy and Air Force was completely intact and after Norway was even stronger than that of the Germans. (The Battle of Britain was never a close thing.)

Invasion of Russia could not have worked. The whole plan rested on wholesale defeat of the Red army in the first 5-6 weeks and the first 500-700 kilometers of advance. They executed that brilliantly but never considered winning in an environment where the Russians could rebuild an army at a rate of half a million men a month. Remember the whole "kick the door in and the whole hose comes down" concept. it was wrong.

Dunkirk would not have made a difference. Of the 330,000 men rescued almost half were Belgian and French and returned to their countries. No material was saved. But it really wasn't needed when there was no way the Germans could effectively land, reinforce and supply an expeditionary force let alone a real invasion force.

I believe the US would definitely have entered the war. after a long period of isolationism the sentiments were moving strongly against Germany. The growing knowledge of the nature of the Nazi occupations were starting to get out. They were just looking for an excuse. Pearl Harbor didn't mean they had to go to war against Germany as w3ell as Japan, and Hitlers declaration of war was not what tipped the scale. The US was already gearing for war. Practically every major weapon system used by the US (including the B-29) was already on the drawing board or being prototyped by Dec. of 1941 and the armed forces were already building their numbers, though not at the same rate yet.

This is actually a valid point. If Hitler and the Nazis would not have been antisemitic, then they would have the German Jewish scientists developing new technology and weapons for them. Now the Allies had better German scientist working for them than the Nazis had.

That explanation can be carried even further. Those 6 million Jews imply a workforce of 1.5 to 2 million workers that were badly needed. More to the point, they were on average a more highly educated, literate and skilled workforce than the European average. Not just were they not utilized, resources were prioritized and expended for their elimination.

the comedian Larry Miller used to joke that "of course the Nazis lost. They killed off all the smart people!" (Others that weren't Jewish also left because any country that treats Jews that way is one whose policies are not those that most moral people would want to live with.)

They couldn't.

Sealion could never have worked. There is no "blitzkrieg" when you have to tow barges at 5-6 knots across 30-100 miles of open water and then have troops with no amphibious doctrine or training embark on contested beachheads. The British had lost much of their Army, but their Navy and Air Force was completely intact and after Norway was even stronger than that of the Germans. (The Battle of Britain was never a close thing.)

Invasion of Russia could not have worked. The whole plan rested on wholesale defeat of the Red army in the first 5-6 weeks and the first 500-700 kilometers of advance. They executed that brilliantly but never considered winning in an environment where the Russians could rebuild an army at a rate of half a million men a month. Remember the whole "kick the door in and the whole hose comes down" concept. it was wrong.

Dunkirk would not have made a difference. Of the 330,000 men rescued almost half were Belgian and French and returned to their countries. No material was saved. But it really wasn't needed when there was no way the Germans could effectively land, reinforce and supply an expeditionary force let alone a real invasion force.

I believe the US would definitely have entered the war. after a long period of isolationism the sentiments were moving strongly against Germany. The growing knowledge of the nature of the Nazi occupations were starting to get out. They were just looking for an excuse. Pearl Harbor didn't mean they had to go to war against Germany as w3ell as Japan, and Hitlers declaration of war was not what tipped the scale. The US was already gearing for war. Practically every major weapon system used by the US (including the B-29) was already on the drawing board or being prototyped by Dec. of 1941 and the armed forces were already building their numbers, though not at the same rate yet.

Maybe if the germans had waited before attacking russia on a full scale attack ( germany was ill prepared for it but still went on and did a good job ) they could delay or even prevent , at least a few more years , the nazi regime from being subdued by the allies .

There is no way germans could have won the war
Why?

Allies had like 100x production compared to germans
Germans had oil only in Romania
Germans had smaller manpower compared to allies
There were giant resistance in German occupied areas (USSR, Yugoslavia, France...) Those areas would have become like Afganistan and Vietnam with great resistance movements.

Maybe if the germans had waited before attacking russia on a full scale attack ( germany was ill prepared for it but still went on and did a good job ) they could delay or even prevent , at least a few more years , the nazi regime from being subdued by the allies .

Maybe. But I think that those "moving variables" have a tendency to move against Hitler more than for him. He had the jump on the world in terms of aggression and doctrine. But in every case the world was adapting to that new environment and perhaps at a faster rate than the Germans.

The Russians were already moving towards total war footing as where the Americans. Hitler on the other hand had a nation to appease. The Germans were supportive and exuberant because he was a WINNER. Don't forget that while the Russians, the Brits and the Americans were industrializing a workforce and mobilizing their women into it as well, working 3 shifts sometimes 7 days a week, the Germans were expecting that this was their time to indulge in the riches lifted from the conquered countries. people were starting to move to plantations in the east that would be worked by slavic minions.

By contrast the British in 1940 were already outproducing German aircraft. They even had an aircraft that was specifically designed to be made by a now underutilized and large industry of smaller furniture factories. This sounds whacky, like the iceberg aircraft carrier designs and the potato throwing naval anti-air weapons (true things, look them up), but in fact it created one of the fastest and most versatile planes of the war, the DeHavilland Mosquito (8,000 built. In furniture shops.)

The Germans wouldn't go on total war footing until 1943.

Maybe. But I think that those "moving variables" have a tendency to move against Hitler more than for him. He had the jump on the world in terms of aggression and doctrine. But in every case the world was adapting to that new environment and perhaps at a faster rate than the Germans.

The Russians were already moving towards total war footing as where the Americans. Hitler on the other hand had a nation to appease. The Germans were supportive and exuberant because he was a WINNER. Don't forget that while the Russians, the Brits and the Americans were industrializing a workforce and mobilizing their women into it as well, working 3 shifts sometimes 7 days a week, the Germans were expecting that this was their time to indulge in the riches lifted from the conquered countries. people were starting to move to plantations in the east that would be worked by slavic minions.

By contrast the British in 1940 were already outproducing German aircraft. They even had an aircraft that was specifically designed to be made by a now underutilized and large industry of smaller furniture factories. This sounds whacky, like the iceberg aircraft carrier designs and the potato throwing naval anti-air weapons (true things, look them up), but in fact it created one of the fastest and most versatile planes of the war, the DeHavilland Mosquito (8,000 built. In furniture shops.)

The Germans wouldn't go on total war footing until 1943.

I should have added that the Russians had only some 500 T-34s when Germany attacked. After another year (if Stalin didn't attack first) there would have been how many? thousands? Might the Germans have yet had a counter to that?

Maybe. But I think that those "moving variables" have a tendency to move against Hitler more than for him. He had the jump on the world in terms of aggression and doctrine. But in every case the world was adapting to that new environment and perhaps at a faster rate than the Germans.

The Russians were already moving towards total war footing as where the Americans. Hitler on the other hand had a nation to appease. The Germans were supportive and exuberant because he was a WINNER. Don't forget that while the Russians, the Brits and the Americans were industrializing a workforce and mobilizing their women into it as well, working 3 shifts sometimes 7 days a week, the Germans were expecting that this was their time to indulge in the riches lifted from the conquered countries. people were starting to move to plantations in the east that would be worked by slavic minions.

By contrast the British in 1940 were already outproducing German aircraft. They even had an aircraft that was specifically designed to be made by a now underutilized and large industry of smaller furniture factories. This sounds whacky, like the iceberg aircraft carrier designs and the potato throwing naval anti-air weapons (true things, look them up), but in fact it created one of the fastest and most versatile planes of the war, the DeHavilland Mosquito (8,000 built. In furniture shops.)

The Germans wouldn't go on total war footing until 1943.

The Battle of Britain was a major flaw in the nazi regime , i dunno if Goering was the full culprit , i dont think so . I think he was being affected , guided and influenced by the wehrmacht and by the nazi party by that time . Maybe if the army attacked from land while they attacked from the air , the results could be diferent .

if they played OKW !

The Battle of Britain was a major flaw in the nazi regime , i dunno if Goering was the full culprit , i dont think so . I think he was being affected , guided and influenced by the wehrmacht and by the nazi party by that time . Maybe if the army attacked from land while they attacked from the air , the results could be diferent .

Look up the multiple sea lion threads on ww2f.com forums. It has been hashed over again and again by people who have the details on force sizes and preparation from May 1940 through.

It wasn't possible in any shape or form. The Germans were still assembling an invasion "fleet" (of barges, tugboats, etc.) and had done only one exercise of very limited scale that despite no opposition and good weather went badly. besides, a landing without air spremacy, let alone air superiority, would be suicide. The air power was the only thing that MIGHT keep the royal navy at bay. Remember that at this time the British had dozens of cruisers and battleships and 200 destroyers. (How many barges an hour do you think each lowly destroyer can sink? And they can do that at night when there are no Stukas.)

In the meantime the British were building defenses, rebuilding their army, and strengthening the navy and air forces. They were so secure of their position that by August they were releasing armored formations to North Africa.

[code][/code]

if they played OKW !

They didn't hold any fuel points. 100% of no income is still no income.

And the Allies didn't have a population cap.

The US was aggressively posturing for war with Germany, in fact the US Navy was already fighting the Kriegsmarine form mid 1941; the US was basically in a state of undeclared war and made movements towards officially entering. Between gearing up and mass producing weapons to technically breaching it's neutrality by refusing to sell weapons to the Germans while gining it to the Allied powers for IOU's it was clear that the US government was preparing to get involved if it was absolutely necessary. Though I don't believe they would of attacked Japan if it stayed in China and didn't keep expanding.

On topic. Germany could only win if the US didn't get involved. Even if they took the UK the United States had Atomic weapons and the capability to send em to Berlin. B-29's range is around 9000km and if I recall correctly they can fly higher than most fighters could. And there's the possibility that the Germans would make the same mistake the Japanese did and decide not to try to intercept a lone B-29. Even then detecting a lone B29 at max altitude is incredibly hard without RADAR which the Germans didn't really invest in until the USAAF arrived. Germany was on the clock the moment they got the attention of the United States and USSR. While it's possible they could of beaten the USSR if they were lucky the US was impossible. At least as they stood at their height in 1942.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKlnjwzT1IruAZFb0EA-5pQ

They're funny, but keep the off-topic things off this thread please.

They couldn't.

Sealion could never have worked. There is no "blitzkrieg" when you have to tow barges at 5-6 knots across 30-100 miles of open water and then have troops with no amphibious doctrine or training embark on contested beachheads. The British had lost much of their Army, but their Navy and Air Force was completely intact and after Norway was even stronger than that of the Germans. (The Battle of Britain was never a close thing.)

I agree that the Operation Sealion could never have worked, because the German Navy and Air Force was weaker than the British counterpart. But my opinion is that the Germans make two mistakes against the Brits (the third point is a consequence of this):
(1) Dunkirk 1940. If the Germans would have eliminated the force here, this would also have a huge moral impact on the Brits and other allies.
(2) Africa 1940. The Germans should have concentrated their energy right after the battle of France in North Africa and drive the Brits out of Egypt and Middle East (instead of the invasion of Great Britain). This could have worked if they had done this when the Brits were unprepared and the Italians have not yet proven themselves to be the Italian army as we know it. Thus the Germans would probably not been involved in the Balkans and Greece, and Mussolini would concentrate his energy on Africa instead (and not make the mistake to be involved in the Balkans).
(3) Sovjet Union 1941. If the Germans were not been forced to clean up the mess in Balkans after Mussolini and the Italian army, then the Germans could have started the Operation Barbarossa earlier, in the middle of May, that is 5-6 weeks earlier, and so have a little more time to advance in Sovjet Union before the famous winter of 1941-2. It was a mistake to lauch the attack as late as June 22.

I agree that the Operation Sealion could never have worked, because the German Navy and Air Force was weaker than the British counterpart. But my opinion is that the Germans make two mistakes against the Brits (the third point is a consequence of this):
(1) Dunkirk 1940. If the Germans would have eliminated the force here, this would also have a huge moral impact on the Brits and other allies.
(2) Africa 1940. The Germans should have concentrated their energy right after the battle of France in North Africa and drive the Brits out of Egypt and Middle East (instead of the invasion of Great Britain). This could have worked if they had done this when the Brits were unprepared and the Italians have not yet proven themselves to be the Italian army as we know it. Thus the Germans would probably not been involved in the Balkans and Greece, and Mussolini would concentrate his energy on Africa instead (and not make the mistake to be involved in the Balkans).
(3) Sovjet Union 1941. If the Germans were not been forced to clean up the mess in Balkans after Mussolini and the Italian army, then the Germans could have started the Operation Barbarossa earlier, in the middle of May, that is 5-6 weeks earlier, and so have a little more time to advance in Sovjet Union before the famous winter of 1941-2. It was a mistake to lauch the attack as late as June 22.

Some good points but I don't think they would have made much of a difference.

1) Dunkirk was a great morale boost, but it's loss would not have lead to any sort of British capitulation. The lack of a morale boost is not the same as a hit to morale. And after the fall of all of France there really wasn't much of a greater morale hit to be taken at that point.

2) The Germans really weren't all that interested in North Africa and never committed much to it, nor do I think they could have/would have in May 1940. They had just conquered France and were looking to England. Even when they did "care" all you got was the Afrika Corps, which was not that much of a commitment.

3) Barbarossa could only have been started so much sooner. The rasputitza (mud season when the roads become impassable) existed in the spring as well as the fall. And this would only have helped if you think that it was the winter that stopped the Germans, and not the fSoviet ability to mobilize so many more men as fast as they did. Or that defeat of the Russians necessitated a supply chain far in excess of what was expected to be needed. As one Russian general said about the theory that the winter was so aweful to the Germans, "we had to fight in it too".

The Germans executed Barbarossa essentially as they planned it. it probably could not have gone any better. But they failed not because of the timing of Barbarossa but because they didn't understand how resilient their enemy was going to be. The Soviet Union had 14 million men with military experience who didn't show up in rolls of their strength.

So many of these theories are ask about how much better the Germans could have done it. But you don't get to have perfection No one seems to theorycraft the allied side. Zhukov could have done a more focused counter attack in Dec. of '41 instead of the broader front approach he used, and it would probably have destroyed Army Group Center already in 1941. Had Stalin permitted retreats more units would have remained operational through the fall of 1941. There are lots of "what ifs" on the allied side as well.

Seems the spring rasputitsa was worse than normal. And while it might have been over by end of May it might not have been clear to the Germans that that was the case in early May. Besides, it isn't at all clear they even needed the forces in Greece if they wanted to launch the attack earlier. They just weren't all that large.

Finally, it wasn't the winter that stopped the Germans at Moscow. It was the Russians. They were there, in force, and dug in. And they had the power by the end of November to launch a counter attack.

But let's take it a step further.... let's say the Germans were able to close the 30km to Moscow. What then? Moscow was 10 times bigger than Stalingrad. The depleted Wehrmacht at the end of its supply line is not going to be able to encircle it (another 100 km? A further thinning of their lines at the end of a now very long and tenuous supply chain? What about entering, in winter, a city that is much larger and would be more tenaciously defended, than Stalingrad?)


Some more on the spring rasputitsa:
http://www.ww2f.com/topic/42605-spring-rasputitsa-1941/?p=476573

-------
All, for those interested I've been given some enlightening details elsewhere...from Andrew Zapantis

Quote

At Wlodawa (a town circa 60 kilometers south of Brest on the Soviet-Polish border), following the March 3 thaw of the ice, the level of the water of the Bug rose and it was high on March 5. After this, by April 2 the water level dropped considerably; however, on April 23 it began to rise again and attained a very high level on May 5 after which the river's water level began to decrease gradually. The monthly maximum levels (not the monthly mean levels however) were flood levels, but not very unusual ones because such floods occur in that area evera four or five years; the damage, if any, was probably not very serious.

At Frankopol (situated north of the city of Sokolow Podlaski which is some 75 kilometers northeast of Warsaw and about 100 kilometers west of Brest) high water levels occurred in March, April and May; and the monthly maximum levels in March and then in the beginning of May (the maximum value was reached on May 7) were flood levels.

Since the thaw began on March 3 and the rainfall in the areas of Warsaw, Wyszkow, Koden (only approximately 36 kilometers from Wlodawa) and Zamosc-Mokre was not heavy the question was asked as to what may have caused the high water levels at Wlodawa and Frankopol. In response the Instytut stated that (regarding Wlodawa and Frankopol) rainfall data for the period in question practically do not exist; one may guess that the rain in the tributary areas must have been sufficient enough to cause such high spring water levels.

It thus appears that the statement made by Guderian that there were floods in the beginning of May seems to be fairly accurate at least on the basis of evidence at Wlodawa. The claim that the floods lasted until June 1941 does not seem to be accurate on the basis of the data quoted

.

I'm not sure about the last question - for the important thing is what the prospect seemed to be when the decision to delay BARBAROSSA was made.

BUT - we now have a start date....and an interesting little piece of information that fopr some reason (records incomplete/nonexistent) there were TWO, and possibly THREE major periods of flooding during the Spring Thaw....

"...following the March 3 thaw of the ice, the level of the water of the Bug rose and it was high on March 5. After this, by April 2 the water level dropped considerably; however, on April 23 it began to rise again and attained a very high level on May 5 after which the river's water level began to decrease gradually.

At Frankopol (situated north of the city of Sokolow Podlaski which is some 75 kilometers northeast of Warsaw and about 100 kilometers west of Brest) high water levels occurred in March, April and May; and the monthly maximum levels in March and then in the beginning of May (the maximum value was reached on May 7) were flood levels."

...and the final one in May was high enough to constitute a flood.

The Rasputitsa ALSO seems to have lasted longer than the normal ~6 weeks - if it began on the 3rd of March, and wasn't winding down again until AFTER May 5th-7th! That's over eight weeks....

In my opinion they simply overdid it with Russia. After capturing France and Poland Germany already had a pretty decent amount of territory occupied. From this point they should have better taken a break and try to establish their position in a diplomatic way rather than trying to execute an entire religion, race or Russia.

Everything the Nazi-Regime tried to achieve was to fight the "Jewish-Bolschewik" Enemy. It was a integral part of their Ideology, so a war with the Sowjet Union was inevitable, i think.

But let's take it a step further.... let's say the Germans were able to close the 30km to Moscow. What then? Moscow was 10 times bigger than Stalingrad. The depleted Wehrmacht at the end of its supply line is not going to be able to encircle it (another 100 km? A further thinning of their lines at the end of a now very long and tenuous supply chain? What about entering, in winter, a city that is much larger and would be more tenaciously defended, than Stalingrad?)

a) The Germans could have cut the communications network to and from Moscow, that is the railroads and the most important roads. The city was a big communications hub for the Sovjets during WW2. Because of this, the Germans could have captured the other cities faster elsewhere, that is...
b) ... Leningrad and cutting the communications to Murmansk,
c) ... and Ukraine and Caucasus,
... because the Germans would have made it more worse for the Sovjets to supply their troops and the citizens in Moscow and the inhabitants west of Moscow.

Sovjet would have been pretty much isolated then, because the Germans would have cut the most important links for the Sovjets to the other countries. We know what happened to Leningrad because of the siege. But it would have been more worse, if the Germans would also cut the links between these two cities and also isolated Moscow.

Of course this is only speculation, but it could be a possible scenario for what would happen if they would have advanced little further.