Could the Axis have won?

Not just could they have won the war, but what would have had to happen in order for them to win, what could they have done differently, etc. Was it bad luck, or did the Axis have no chance from the day Germany crossed into Poland?

 

Declaring war to the USSR and then the US....that´s two big reasons...

 

I think that is true. Germany was not prepared for a World War in 1939.

 

Hitler should of stopped by May 1941 and hold his gains.

 

Facism could have survived if Germany led the way on an anti-bolshevik campaign instead of pro-aryan antisemtic crap. Spain and Italy were Facist yet not looked upon as negatively as Nazi Germany was by the Western Allies.

Hitler could have attacked Russia without interference from the West had the West not felt threatened by Hitler. Hitler broke one too many promises and as previous noted, declared war on the US while fighting in the East.

 

Thank God for the Gröfaz, the best secret weapon the Allies could find!

 

This really depends on what victory for Germany meant, I belive that Hitler should have called it quits after the fall of France. Once he declared the war on Russia and the U.S., his fate was sealed.

 

True enough

 

Yes, with Austria under his belt. He should have let Russian's attack Poland 1st. Then invade and state it was done as a blocking effort to hold back the Russians. Grab Norway like he did to keep England at bay. Use all his propganda agaist the Communist. And most of what was left of Europe would have supported that. He would have invaded before he did his eastern war would have started before the cold Russian winter. Take the balkins oil fields. Thing might have been different. The Omega

 

So it was impossible for Germany to defeat both the USA and USSR, but could Germany have beaten just the USSR and stayed away from the US? Or was attacking Russia what ended Germany's hopes to win WWII? Obviously, Hitler got way ahead of himself and opened too many fronts, and he wasn't able to finish any of the fronts off. But since Africa wasn't much of a drain, do we think the Germans could have defeated Russia if Hitler focused soley on the Eastern front?

My Opinion:
Hitler should have taken a breath after his invading Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, and France. He got too high on his domination of these unprepared countries. He had control of almost all of Europe, he could have afforded an invasion of the Balkans, but it was a mistake to attack Russia so early in the war. He should have "consolidated his gains" and attacked Russia when Germany was better prepared. So Germany could have ended the war in 1940 and they would have won, but attacking the USSR actually ended German hopes of victory.

 

Bingo!!

See now your talking!

But also please keep in mind that Stalin had plans of his own. If Germany would have attakced Russia later, Russia would have been more powerful and maybe instead of say 1400 T-34's which Russia had in june 1941, it might have had more then 5000 or 10000 thousand ( depending on your time frame ofcourse )

You see 3ball44, Stalin knew that war was coming, just not so soon. Stalin's premise was wait for Germany to conquer Europe and fight it out with the U.S. and then while both were drained, attack Germany and liberate all of Europe with his now new, fresh and powerful army....... ( according to some anyway ) history as we know it, didnt exactly play into his hand.

 

If Germany did end the war in 1940, I don't think the peace would have lasted very long at all. Germany or the USSR would have broken their treaty and attacked the other within just a few years. Both countries would have been forced to stayed alert of the others activities and it may have turned into an earlier version of the cold war American/Soviet arms race. Although I doubt nuclear weapons would have been created soon enough to be any factor in this scenerio.

Maybe if Hitler would have given Italy a few more years to prepare, they could have become a real juggernaut and conquered the USSR for the new Roman Empire.

 

Hitler would never have let Russia attack Poland on its own. That would have risked the Soviet Union occupying all of Poland (if the Polish front collapsed quickly) and that would have put Germany in an awkward spot, with the hated communists right on Germany's border. Besides, Poland was occupying traditionally German territory that Hitler wanted to reoccupy.

 

Gotta agree with Sloniksp, Germany likely wouldn't have been better off if they had waited. Germany was being bombed by the Brits and having to come to Italy's rescue and secure their new gains. Russian rearmament was moving ahead without any of those concerns. Hitler moved when he did for good reason; it was now or never in his mind.

 

As in all wars, a plan goes out the window when the troops start to move. Hiter never had in mind to fight in N. Africa or Greece and even in Norway. Fate forced his hand and later he blamed it on fate when he could have avoided costly mistakes. So, yes, it was a case of now or never, definitely with Russia.

 

Great point!

 

What if they could pull off there old school blitzkrieg attack in Russia, but rather spreading out, getting closer for one objective. The Heart of Russia, Moscow! The, moving south to take the oil fields and after, if its successful, He could use the transportation and fuel to take on the rest.




And besides, aren't we all just happy they LOST?

 

The problem with attacking Russia was that it was soooo big..... Concentrating your forces just on one spot, with a country of such size, leave you vulnerable to encirclement...... A good example of this is the argument that Hitler should have never advanced into Ukrain and should have gone straight to Moscow.... While this might be true, at the same time just passing Ukraine in order to get to Moscow, leaves about 1,000,000 unchecked Soviet troops on your flank. Not the best position to be in, in an attack on the most fortified city in Russia

Also who is to say that Russia would have collapsed if Moscow was taken? Once again, this was a gamble that Napoleon took and failed. Hitler thought he might do better......this fortunately for Russians and the rest of the world was not the case as well.

I know I am

 

Now that is the critical issue. The size. Any European country that attacks Russia, broadens their front as they advance, thus thinning out the front line. There is a way to have beaten the Soviet Union of the 40's. Use the population to revolt against Stalin. Afterall, the Germans were welcomed as liberators. Turn Russia's number 2 asset against it. Manpower. Instead, Napoleon and Hitler gave the Russian peasants reason to fight back.

 

Please becareful.......While you might be right about the population of countries like Ukraine, this was not the case in Russia, as people were loyal to Stalin, afterall this was the man that was responsible for turning their country from a peasant one to one of huge industrial capabilites and providing jobs and education, rivaling the Western countries and considered him a father figure at the time of the invasion. This was the case as most of the population was ignorent of the Gulags and other numerous treacheries. Every Russian and I mean every, viewed the Germans as invaders and not liberators and were lining up to kick them out of their country.