How Could the Axis Won the War ?

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 .

The short answer is, he was. Goering was a very flamboyant, bombastic figure, a showman type, with a bad habit of making promises he couldn't deliver. He promised the Luftwaffe would defeat the British RAF - even though it had no proper strategic bombers - and he promised that it could resupply the army at Stalingrad. It was on the strength of Goering's guarantees that Hitler promised publicly that Germany would never be bombed. He was badly wrong in all cases. And he was probably among those least influencable by the Nazi party, because his prestige as a bona fide WW1 war hero gave him an entirely independent standing, and even Hitler basked in his glow.

Air power was the most modern military arm, for which there existed almost no precedent by which to judge its potential effectiveness. Goering was, in effect, the best placed person to figure out what it could do, and even he had little but guesses to work with. The German high command had no data with which to challenge his claims, and little alternative but to take them at face value.

Whether the article is true or not it simply would not have mattered.

The German logistics were extremely hampered and would have been regardless. Any ton of winter clothing is a ton of fuel or ammunition or spare parts or replacement equipment, or food that is not going to get to the troops.

The Allies faced the same zero-sum decisions in 1944 and they had an even more robust supply chain and logistical plan than the Germans in 1941. They did manage to get winter clothing to most of the frontline troops. While it is kind of famous that the 101st Airborne went into Bastogne without proper winter gear they also didn't have anywhere close to a full load of weapons and food either. They were doing R&R and the limited supplies were going to frontline troops.

what about since Hitler's rise to absolute power, if he did not waste any resources or a lot of them? I heard in one documentary how Nazi Germany spent a lot of manpower and raw materials stripped from maginot lines to build sigfried lines? and build more trucks and stuff? could they have done significantly better?

We cant talk about "what could have them done" because then, it will be aswell "what allies would respond to that", on an infinite cicle were at the end germany always loses when siberia reach the front, since looks like stalin had plans to attack germany even if they didnt attack first

First of all, while Germany was supported by all the resources they needed for war by Soviet Union, so they could really finish off the Britain (they lost BoB because of some stupid mistakes of Hermann Göring though) and then could easily take the Africa. With no annoying Britain and no reason to waste resources in Africa (and African oil) they could attack Soviet Union with a chance for a victory.

On the ost front - Germany had a great chance to win - while 'rasputitsa' and then winter didnt start Guderian tanks, as Guderian begged the Hitler, could attack and take the Moscow. In that time Moscow also wasnt prepare for defence and had no that 1 million army from Siberia. But, Hitler said "We cant go for a Moscow before we take Kiev, so turn your tank back" - yeah they took Kiev and surrounded another Soviet army but if they just took Moscow they really could finish the war). If Japan attacked SU on the east Stalin couldn't able to send the whole 1 million Siberian army to Moscow. It is 1 million army who highly specialised on winter war.
Germany should never declare war on US and Hitler should never take command on Eastern front - he did just huge mistakes. This guy just didnt know what to do. Sent tanks to one direction then turn it back then sent againt, made a really wide front, failed at Caucasus, didnt ordered to reatreat from Stalingrad. Then that retarded operation "Citadel" that was failed before it started.

Yeah, Germany had a chances to win the war, but they wasted it.

Speculation is always easy, just to point it out.

1. Battle of Britain wasn't failure for original plans, because in the first weeks Britain's airforce was almost completely destroyed, their airfields were almost unusable. Don't remember who said this, but some RAF general said that BoB was already lost until (Not Hermann Göring, although he was idiot too) Hitler gave the order to bomb cities not british airpower (airfield,factory,radar). This gave very important respite for RAF to fix airfields and their airpower. He did this because Churchill in some stupid/genius idea send night bombing to Berlin, which made Hitler angry and changed totally the tactics for BoB. If they had kept the original plans for BoB britains airforce would have been totally nullified and Germans would have had total air control of south&mid Britain air, like allies had in late war.

2. Hitler's total paranoia and reign over Preussian Generals made the command and decisions always get second guessed, which in the end was many times shown over Operations. Dunkirk (Hitler ordered against it), Battle of Britain (Hitler changed targets to cities and didn't keep bombing airfields), Barbarossa (Hitler decided against rush to Moscow, which his generals supported), Stalingrad (Hitler "no retreat" order + locked Germany's most powerful asset "Mobile warfare" to "Meat grinder" city fighting) there was a possibility to get Stalingrad surrounded & sieged if they focused around the city not inside it, After Stalingrad (Hitler still had order "No Retreat") which made alot of units get surrounded like the germans did to soviets. There are many war operations that started as planned, but our savior Hitler put his fingers inside and changed the plans, if Hitler had trusted his Generals from the start to end, war would have been different.

3. Italy & Mussolini. Africa was total failure for Mussolini and made Germans waste efforts & resources there which would have helped in War against russia. Balkans again made Germans intervene and made resources used there which delayed their Barbarossa plans. Italy had the most powerful navy inside mediterranean, but it's weak use of them. Made them useless and most of them were just sunk inside the harbors.

4. Strategic decisions after fall of France. Main focus on taking out Britain from the war, before even thinking about invading Russia, could have made history books different. Succesful BoB & Submarine strangle hold would have made living in that island nation hell. Just food for thought.

Why Axis lost in simple word is "Hitler". He started all and he messed alot of things in the war. 5 years could have been 6-10 years. Speculation is fun, but in the end useless. Nobody anyway here wanted for Hitler to win.

Germany could not "win" the war. What was possible however was "not losing" the war.

Hitler in June of 1940 should have:

1. Ensured the destruction of the British Expeditionary Force at Dunkirk.

2. Stay focused on the destruction of the RAF and once completed, begun bombing British power plants, water works, and any public works designed to feed the population at large.

3. Ramp up U boat production and completely cut Britain off from overseas supply of food, oil, raw materials and military assets.

4. Do everything possible to dislodge Churchill from his position as head of government while appealing to those in the British government who were more conducive to a peace arrangement.

If Germany had put overwhelming pressure on Britain to pull out of the war, and at the very least waited for this before invading the Soviet Union, they MIGHT have been able to hold on to their gains.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

(Its unclear if the Germans and Soviets would have fought. I've heard claims that Stalin was just as interested in attacking the Germans as Hitler was in attacking the Russians. Its just Hitler beat him to it in June 1941.)

1. Battle of Britain wasn't failure for original plans, because in the first weeks Britain's airforce was almost completely destroyed, their airfields were almost unusable. Don't remember who said this, but some RAF general said that BoB was already lost until (Not Hermann Göring, although he was idiot too) Hitler gave the order to bomb cities not british airpower (airfield,factory,radar). This gave very important respite for RAF to fix airfields and their airpower. He did this because Churchill in some stupid/genius idea send night bombing to Berlin, which made Hitler angry and changed totally the tactics for BoB. If they had kept the original plans for BoB britains airforce would have been totally nullified and Germans would have had total air control of south&mid Britain air, like allies had in late war.

This is, or was, the conventional view that arose during the war itself, and prevailed up until about the 80's; it's the view that is expressed in the movie Battle of Britain. However, more recent work has poured cold water on the idea.

The question comes down to how important those airfields really are. And while they have there uses, they just are not critical. If the Luftwaffe had bombed every airfield to rubble, British fighters would still have been able to take off and land at improvised grass fields. Indeed, virtually the whole German effort was made from the same sort of improvised fields in France, showing how little difference they really make.

Additionally, the corner had already been turned some time before the switch to the bombing of cities. German losses were climbing way past replacement rate, while British production of aircraft and crews was constantly ramping upward. Every German pilot who bailed out over England was lost, while every British pilot who bailed out was back in the air as soon as the next day. The Germans were also fighting at the very limit of fuel capacity, which limited the time they could spend fighting, and caused losses on the return trip. (Although they did have a really excellent air-sea rescue service.)

Luftwaffe estimates of the strength of the RAF were woefully inadequate, and German crews used to caustically joke that every Spitfire they saw was the last one, as Goering had claimed. By the closing stages of the Battle of Britain, it was more a turkey shoot than a battle. Nevertheless, German efforts were increased just at the very end, to maintain strategic surprise over the Russians; but this inflicted yet more avoidable losses.

The prevailing view these days is that the Luftwaffe never came close to winning the BoB, regardless of what target they were bombing, and almost certainly never could have won it under any circumstances right from the start.

(Its unclear if the Germans and Soviets would have fought. I've heard claims that Stalin was just as interested in attacking the Germans as Hitler was in attacking the Russians. Its just Hitler beat him to it in June 1941.)

That would be the views expressed by Viktor Suvorov and then jumped on by certain apologists.

In general these views are very much debunked in academia. There simply isn't any sufficient evidence that point towards that idea, the Red Army at any point would be woefully inadequate in 1941 and would need years to prepare.
Usual response to that is "yeah but they would have attacked in 44-45!" Which is based on nothing but air.

1. Battle of Britain wasn't failure for original plans, because in the first weeks Britain's airforce was almost completely destroyed, their airfields were almost unusable. Don't remember who said this, but some RAF general said that BoB was already lost until (Not Hermann Göring, although he was idiot too) Hitler gave the order to bomb cities not british airpower (airfield,factory,radar). This gave very important respite for RAF to fix airfields and their airpower. He did this because Churchill in some stupid/genius idea send night bombing to Berlin, which made Hitler angry and changed totally the tactics for BoB. If they had kept the original plans for BoB britains airforce would have been totally nullified and Germans would have had total air control of south&mid Britain air, like allies had in late war.

Even if Hitler had succeeded in beating RAF and launching an invasion of UK, I am sure that the Brits would have turned the Island into a Meat Grinder. It is completely different thing to beat the French, the Norwegians or the Belgians and occupy their country, than to conquer the Brits. Whatever they say, they are not so civilized or nice when it comes to warfare.

They would probably have killed every single German soldier who set their foot on British soil.

For Germans it was crucial to setup powerful defenses and wait for the Red Army to attack and get smashed by their superior and dug in well supported Wehrmacht- after the disastrous Stalingrad Battle. They, after that time, changed to defensive stance, could've dealt massive blows to upcoming Soviet offensives and wreak havoc with their newer equipments. However they just didn't go with that one and allowed their numerically superior enemy to build up impassable fortifications on the Bulge of the Kursk. And they attacked to Kursk consuming all their glorious Panzer elements in vain. If they had hold at least Ukraine and Belarussia and withdrawn from the Leningrad earlier they could've got Staling seeking for a peace agreement. And they also had to strengthen the Atlantic Wall and concentrate all their West front divisions to Normandy in order to repel ever growing Allied threat.

they could've got Staling seeking for a peace agreement.

Not even remotely in the realm of possibility. Stalin would not sue for peace no matter what, since that would mean the end of his regime and the end of his life. There is not a possibility of the communists suing for peace no matter of Stalingrad falls, if Moscow does or even Jaroslav.


Only option for that is the communists falling from power due to internal struggle or civil uprising, which was never even close to happening.

We cant talk about "what could have them done" because then, it will be aswell "what allies would respond to that", on an infinite cicle were at the end germany always loses when siberia reach the front, since looks like stalin had plans to attack germany even if they didnt attack first

where's the fun in that?

Not have attacked the Soviet Union without finishing off the British. They forced a two front war. If they knocked out the UK, and had full force on Russia, they may have won.

Also another thing when they did attack russia, they went for the resources first not moscow, they delayed moscow letting the russian dig in and hold. if they went straight for moscow, it may have turned out differently also.

Believe it or not, Germany liked the USA due to the way we treated certain type of people esp the native american Indians.

They declared war on us due to japan being their ally.

Well that's the end result of counterfactual history. Change one small thing and you'll change everything.
That is why counterfactual history is a practice in futility.


Two things from this thread: A) Most important, questions like this are a futile excersise. B) Due the the simple reality of the situation, economically, industrially, politically and militarily, there is no possible outcome that leads to German victory, unless God almighty descends from Heaven and smites all their foes.

where's the fun in that?

plot twist, war isnt supposed to be fun :/

I'm not against counterfactual history, because I don't think that history runs on rails in some fatalistic manner. But some scenarios are more conducive to that sort of thing than others. I think the deck was so stacked against Germany that it had no chance of winning; but a different case, like the Norman invasion of England, was pretty flukey and could easily have come out quite differently.

And I think it can be fun to speculate about these things, just for the intellectual and imaginative exercise.

But its very difficult to see how Germany could have initiated any aggressive war without unifying most of Europe against it.

I believe that the British were very close to surrender post Dunkirk to the point that the US ambassador had been informed that this was the case the vote was then carried 3 to 2 in favour of not doing so with Churchill the deciding vote.


One issue with the what ifs is the huge unexpected what ifs that had already occurred. The fall of France so quickly was totally unexpected and extraordinary

Even if Hitler had succeeded in beating RAF and launching an invasion of UK, I am sure that the Brits would have turned the Island into a Meat Grinder. It is completely different thing to beat the French, the Norwegians or the Belgians and occupy their country, than to conquer the Brits. Whatever they say, they are not so civilized or nice when it comes to warfare.

They would probably have killed every single German soldier who set their foot on British soil.

What makes you think that? the British inland is not particularly well suited for defence. the British morale was already low after france and the repeated attacks of the luftwaffe. the britisch army had taken a beating after dunkirk. If the Germans successfully managed to cross the channel they we would be the first in thousand years to do so. it would have been bone shattering blow to morale as a whole.

This is, or was, the conventional view that arose during the war itself, and prevailed up until about the 80's; it's the view that is expressed in the movie Battle of Britain. However, more recent work has poured cold water on the idea.

Additionally, the corner had already been turned some time before the switch to the bombing of cities. German losses were climbing way past replacement rate, while British production of aircraft and crews was constantly ramping upward. Every German pilot who bailed out over England was lost, while every British pilot who bailed out was back in the air as soon as the next day. The Germans were also fighting at the very limit of fuel capacity, which limited the time they could spend fighting, and caused losses on the return trip. (Although they did have a really excellent air-sea rescue service.)

.

The problem with that is simple to explain: nazi incompetence. The nazi's could have ramped up the production of aircraft several times that of the brits. also the British had very vulnerable shipping lanes and u boat activity combined with air superiority would have completely cut of Britain form from the rest of the world.

While it would not be decisive battle and more of a siege i believe the Germans could have brought Britain to heel within 6 months . Good thing hitler had other ideas,

Well, the U-boat campaign certainly could have brought the UK to it's knees, in theory. But they didn't have enough U-boats at the start of the war either. As for planes, well, I dunno about specifically Nazi incompetence; aircraft production climbed through-out the war too.

Increasing production to "several times" that of the UK? Seems unlikely to me.

I keep seeing logistics being brought up. It is definitely key to why Germany would NEVER have won the war. Operations management which goes in tandem with logistics but includes the cultural/industrial capacities of the combatants can help color the bleak picture that was Germany's fate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6xLMUifbxQ


I agree with what AvNY is trying to tell some of these wehraboos (I went through as similar phase with the American Civil War). The numbers for victory simply do not add up for Germany no matter how you fudge it. Even if we look away from data and analyze the skill of German generals, they simply were not some super superior breed of leaders that other countries lacked. Rommel and Guderian do not live up to the mythology built around them.

You can dream of scenarios where Germany might see more success, but that is all it is and ever will be: a dream. Hey, but go ahead, tell us how ignoring fundamental tenants of nazi ideology would help them win the war. Tell me how Hitler fucked it. Tell me how they should have invaded the USSR earlier. Tell me how Rommel should have won. Tell me how Germany should have actually tried something called counter-intelligence and preserving the secret of the Enigma code. Tell me the weather was bad. Maybe the war lasts a little longer, but it will never add up.