How Could The Axis Have Won WWII?

[Alaizia]

A self-explanatory title, how could the forces of Axis have prevailed in World War 2? Where they even able to do it from the get-go? If not, what went wrong? What also would consider a win from each Axis country's perspective. Could all of them stand victors in the end? Some of them?

For example, Nazi Germany first and foremost wanted to eradicate, aside from the Jews, Communists thus attacking the USSR and creating lebensraum for Aryans. Italy wanted to relive the dream of a Neo Roman Empire. Imperial Japan....just wanted to conquer staff, especially its rival China to increase its sphere of influence. One of the pre-war facts was that the three Axis key players weren't co-operating well together and on equal terms, especially Germany and Italy with Japan. Also, Italy became basically after some time Germany's lap dog. So, this lack of right communication was somewhat of a handicap right from the start for the Axis.

However, diving into the big "What If"s of history, what incidents and/or moves had to have taken place and succeed for a 180 degrees result in WW2 as close to reality as possible?

[Thermodolia]

First off Hitler never should have been in charge. Second invading Russia was the dumbest thing the Germans did, declaring war on the US was the second. Japan never should have bombed Pearl Harbor, would have saved them a hell of a lot of trouble. And Germany never should have stopped production of the Nuclear bomb

[Trotskylvania]

In short, they couldn't without fundamentally changing the nature of the regimes in question.

Fascist politics are a fancy suicide pact because the nature of fascist ideology makes it impossible to accurately assess the enemy's strength. The enemy must simultaneously be degenerate and weak, with an inferior national spirit (after all, they are not part of your in group), and yet an omnipresent, insidious threat that must be eliminated.

As Umberto Eco pointed out in his essay "Ur-Fascism: Fourteen Ways to Look at a Blackshirt", fascism is driven by a feeling of humiliation at the perceived wealth of the enemies. Without the international conspiracy, you don't get the cult of the nation, with its contempt for the weak/intellectual. Violence is something pursued for its own sake as a redemptive ethos.

And in the end, they're left pursuing wars they have no hope of winning. Occaisionally, they'll win them by luck and irrational behavior. The German "sickle-cut" against France only worked out of sheer luck. The war began because the Nazis were not rational actors and didn't believe their foes would actually resort to force of arms. Because wouldn't it be stupid to take on France and Britain again, this time alone, when they whooped you the previous time?

[Telconi]

-Germany holds off on invasion of USSR and instead focuses on eliminating Great Britain, thus effectively closing the western front.

-As you mentioned, Japan and Germany actually cooperate on mutual goals, rather than simply perusing their own goals. (Japan holds off on Pearl Harbor, to instead focus it's navy on achieving sea superiority in the Atlantic.)

-Nazis not try to implement the "Final Solution" during a war. Thus freeing otherwise occupied resources for killing bad guys, not your own people. (Of course Nazis not being racist trash to begin with would have helped a lot)

[The Great Devourer of All]

If Hitler kept his Soviet allies and launched an invasion of the Middle East, he might have won.

[Alaizia]

-Germany holds off on invasion of USSR and instead focuses on eliminating Great Britain, thus effectively closing the western front.

How could they do that when they haven't invested much in their naval power and their U-Boats were ultimately deemed "not enough".

-As you mentioned, Japan and Germany actually cooperate on mutual goals, rather than simply perusing their own goals. (Japan holds off on Pearl Harbor, to instead focus it's navy on achieving sea superiority in the Atlantic.)

-Nazis not try to implement the "Final Solution" during a war. Thus freeing otherwise occupied resources for killing bad guys, not your own people. (Of course Nazis not being racist trash to begin with would have helped a lot)

I agree on that. If only they did that in Ukraine and the Baltic, the situation would be a lot easier for them. But then we wouldn't be talking about Nazis.

First off Hitler never should have been in charge. Second invading Russia was the dumbest thing the Germans did, declaring war on the US was the second. Japan never should have bombed Pearl Harbor, would have saved them a hell of a lot of trouble. And Germany never should have stopped production of the Nuclear bomb

But Japan needed oil to sustain the war, and by 1941 the US weren't supplying it to them. One option would be Southern Asia, which what they did. But could they have attacked as far as Malaya without triggering the US?

[Farnhamia]

First off Hitler never should have been in charge. Second invading Russia was the dumbest thing the Germans did, declaring war on the US was the second. Japan never should have bombed Pearl Harbor, would have saved them a hell of a lot of trouble. And Germany never should have stopped production of the Nuclear bomb

If you want to get down to it, the Kaiser shouldn't have supported Austria against the Serbs. I guess we haven't had a "What if?" thread in a while.

[Thermodolia]

-Germany holds off on invasion of USSR and instead focuses on eliminating Great Britain, thus effectively closing the western front.

How could they do that when they haven't invested much in their naval power and their U-Boats were ultimately deemed "not enough".

-As you mentioned, Japan and Germany actually cooperate on mutual goals, rather than simply perusing their own goals. (Japan holds off on Pearl Harbor, to instead focus it's navy on achieving sea superiority in the Atlantic.)

-Nazis not try to implement the "Final Solution" during a war. Thus freeing otherwise occupied resources for killing bad guys, not your own people. (Of course Nazis not being racist trash to begin with would have helped a lot)

I agree on that. If only they did that in Ukraine and the Baltic, the situation would be a lot easier for them. But then we wouldn't be talking about Nazis.

First off Hitler never should have been in charge. Second invading Russia was the dumbest thing the Germans did, declaring war on the US was the second. Japan never should have bombed Pearl Harbor, would have saved them a hell of a lot of trouble. And Germany never should have stopped production of the Nuclear bomb

But Japan needed oil to sustain the war, and by 1941 the US weren't supplying it to them. One option would be Southern Asia, which what they did. But could they have attacked as far as Malaya without triggering the US?

The US where pretty damn isolationist up to the point that they got attacked. Hell FDR had a hard time passing his lend-lease act though Congress. If it didn't directly effect the USA nothing would have happened.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Don't invade Russia. /thread

[Thermodolia]

Don't invade Russia. /thread

Or bomb the US

[Valdia01]

They could have won with attacking Ussr of Usa

[Alaizia]

How could they do that when they haven't invested much in their naval power and their U-Boats were ultimately deemed "not enough".


I agree on that. If only they did that in Ukraine and the Baltic, the situation would be a lot easier for them. But then we wouldn't be talking about Nazis.



But Japan needed oil to sustain the war, and by 1941 the US weren't supplying it to them. One option would be Southern Asia, which what they did. But could they have attacked as far as Malaya without triggering the US?

The US where pretty damn isolationist up to the point that they got attacked. Hell FDR had a hard time passing his lend-lease act though Congress. If it didn't directly effect the USA nothing would have happened.

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but weren't the US supporting Chinese Nationalists by then? That sounds pretty un-isolationist to me.

Don't invade Russia. /thread

Ok. Then what?
Also, don't forget we are not just talking about Germany here.

[Baltenstein]

I was wondering when one of those would show up again.

The short answer is: Not at all.

The somewhat longer answer is: If the leaderships of Britain and the US had been radically different than they were in Real Life (i.e: the US vote an isolationist president instead of FDR in the Thirties, Britain keeps Chamberlain and sues for peace after the Fall of France, becoming Germany's vasall/junior partner) and/or if the geopolitical ideological tenets of National Socialism had also been radically different, meaning, if Hitler had made the quick neutralization and/or conquest of Britain a strategic top priority right from 1933, while discarding any notion of conquering the USSR for Lebensraum.

[North Isseggggnignigsegigisegggg Islands]

Firstly, I HATE the Axis with a burning passion and I'm happy they lost the war.
Now, for the purposes of this AU, if they wanted to win:
* Nazi Germany shouldn't have made the V1 and V2 missiles, but instead mass-produced fighters and bombers.
* Hitler should have made there one clear heirarchy, instead of making several competing heirarchies to induce infighting.
* Japan shouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbour. That way, the USA wouldn't have declared war on Japan.
* Japan should have used their elite pilots to train new pilots to make a huge number of good pilots.
* Japan shouldn't have treated their pilots and planes as disposable.
* Japan should developed and made a well-armoured, well-armed, fast heavy fighter (like the P-47) to use as their main fighter, with the Zero given a more minor role. They should also have developed more powerful engines.
* Nazi Germany should have agreed on two or three boring-but-practical tank designs and mass-produced them.
* Nazi Germany shouldn't have attacked Russia.

[Farnhamia]

Don't invade Russia. /thread

Or bomb the US

The Germans didn't have that ability. No operational aircraft carriers to speak of and that pesky Royal Navy in the way even if they did.

[Telconi]

-Germany holds off on invasion of USSR and instead focuses on eliminating Great Britain, thus effectively closing the western front.

How could they do that when they haven't invested much in their naval power and their U-Boats were ultimately deemed "not enough".

-As you mentioned, Japan and Germany actually cooperate on mutual goals, rather than simply perusing their own goals. (Japan holds off on Pearl Harbor, to instead focus it's navy on achieving sea superiority in the Atlantic.)

-Nazis not try to implement the "Final Solution" during a war. Thus freeing otherwise occupied resources for killing bad guys, not your own people. (Of course Nazis not being racist trash to begin with would have helped a lot)

I agree on that. If only they did that in Ukraine and the Baltic, the situation would be a lot easier for them. But then we wouldn't be talking about Nazis.

First off Hitler never should have been in charge. Second invading Russia was the dumbest thing the Germans did, declaring war on the US was the second. Japan never should have bombed Pearl Harbor, would have saved them a hell of a lot of trouble. And Germany never should have stopped production of the Nuclear bomb

But Japan needed oil to sustain the war, and by 1941 the US weren't supplying it to them. One option would be Southern Asia, which what they did. But could they have attacked as far as Malaya without triggering the US?

The Axis could have achieved naval superiority in the channel via air power, and Japanese help. Even if they couldn't sustain superiority, all they needed was to set the Royal Navy reeling for a week or so, to buy time to force an invasion across the channel from France. The British were in rough shape at the time of the Battle of Britain. With some Japanese support, and all of the Eastern Front troops commited to the invasion, they could have forced a thrust over the channel despite the Royal Navy.

[Imperializt Russia]

By not fighting Russia. Ever.

Just couldn't be done.

[Thermodolia]

Or bomb the US

The Germans didn't have that ability. No operational aircraft carriers to speak of and that pesky Royal Navy in the way even if they did.

Axis in general is what I was referring to

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Don't invade Russia. /thread

Ok. Then what?
Also, don't forget we are not just talking about Germany here.

Invade the UK, support Japan, take 'Merica and Canada, send some of your bad hombres down to Mexico, win.

[Imperializt Russia]

Firstly, I HATE the Axis with a burning passion and I'm happy they lost the war.
Now, for the purposes of this AU, if they wanted to win:
* Nazi Germany shouldn't have made the V1 and V2 missiles, but instead mass-produced fighters and bombers.
* Hitler should have made there one clear heirarchy, instead of making several competing heirarchies to induce infighting.
* Japan shouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbour. That way, the USA wouldn't have declared war on Japan.
* Japan should have used their elite pilots to train new pilots to make a huge number of good pilots.
* Japan shouldn't have treated their pilots and planes as disposable.
* Japan should developed and made a well-armoured, well-armed, fast heavy fighter (like the P-47) to use as their main fighter, with the Zero given a more minor role. They should also have developed more powerful engines.
* Nazi Germany should have agreed on two or three boring-but-practical tank designs and mass-produced them.
* Nazi Germany shouldn't have attacked Russia.

How "disposable" a kamikaze aircraft was is a matter of debate. Trading a plane for an enemy warship, especially a capital ship like a battleship or carrier is an amazing trade.

The V1 and V2 were very potent weapon systems, but poorly employed as terror weapons lashing out at allied (British) cities. Had they been used to strike industrial targets or military targets (V2s were used to siege Antwerp around the time of the Ardennes offensive), they could have had a much greater impact.

[Farnhamia]

The Germans didn't have that ability. No operational aircraft carriers to speak of and that pesky Royal Navy in the way even if they did.

Axis in general is what I was referring to

That would require the Japanese occupying the Hawaiian Islands and even then, California is about 2,500 miles away. They'd have to maintain a floating airbase to conduct a sustained bombing campaign against the West Coast. Terror raids might have been one thing but serious damage would, I think be out of the question.

[ChicagoBoys]

Actual coordination between Germany, Italy, Finland, and Japan would be about half the battle. Without Italy utterly screwing up Greee and requiring Germany to divert forces it desperately needed the war would have went far differently. Just as Japan not bombing Pearl Harbor as early on or helping fight the Soviets

[Thermodolia]

The US where pretty damn isolationist up to the point that they got attacked. Hell FDR had a hard time passing his lend-lease act though Congress. If it didn't directly effect the USA nothing would have happened.

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but weren't the US supporting Chinese Nationalists by then? That sounds pretty un-isolationist to me.

Not officially. Any US troops fighting in China and elsewhere had to be released from the US military and transferred to the Chinese government. It was apart of the Lend-Lease Program. Something that FDR had a hard time get though congress

[Baltenstein]

The Axis could have achieved naval superiority in the channel via air power, and Japanese help.

Japanese help? In the Channel? It's literally on the other end of the world.

With some Japanese support, and all of the Eastern Front troops commited to the invasion, they could have forced a thrust over the channel despite the Royal Navy.

How so? There was no German superiority (whereas the Allies had already secured air supremacy on D-Day), no sea superiority and, most importantly, no means of actually getting the ground troops across.

[Thermodolia]

Axis in general is what I was referring to

That would require the Japanese occupying the Hawaiian Islands and even then, California is about 2,500 miles away. They'd have to maintain a floating airbase to conduct a sustained bombing campaign against the West Coast. Terror raids might have been one thing but serious damage would, I think be out of the question.

I was saying that they should have NOT bombed Pearl Harbor. Japan would have had a better chance at survival if they didn't attack the USA