How could the Axis Powers win WW2?

[Heloin]

If Germany hadn't invaded Poland in 1939.

Otherwise a British Government that was open to the idea of negotiating a peace would needed to gain power.

If Japan in any way makes war with America they lose.

[Hammer Britannia]

The man in the high castle is a meme of an alternate history.

If even one German stepped foot in America there would be at least 10 armed civilians resisting.

Per square mile.

*Acre

[Torrocca]

Case Blue would've only potentially worked if they diverted resources from the other two army groups, which... would've freed up numerous Soviet units and helped bolster the defense of Stalingrad and the Caucasus oil fields.

Simply not breaking the initial thrust in half would have given Case Blue a not insignificant chance of working.

That being said I can understand why the choice was made to push for Baku and the Caucasus early but with hindsight it was absolutely the wrong choice. Taking Stalingrad as the main objective and seizing control of the river and rail lines in the area would have made it an absolute pain for the Soviets to supply units south of the now German controlled territory and also would have wreaked havoc with the Soviets fuel.

Also kick out Paulus and put Schörner in charge of the whole thing.

That's the thing, though: if they concentrated on the big three cities of Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Moscow (because, let's face it, they absolutely were not going to give up on Moscow, and diverting from Leningrad would've been asinine strategically), they would've been utterly fucked on oil. If they tried to circumvent Stalingrad, they'd've been fucked by the major presence of hundreds of thousands of soldiers behind their lines.

[Scottish Socialists]

Since the Nazis were the main threat I will focus on them, the Nazis could have easily won the war by doing a few simple things.
1. countinue the strategic boaming of southern England, this would weeken military assets in southern England clearing a way for a secsesful landing, plus the decision to stop boaming stritigic military Targets and Start boaming was a big mistake.
2. Finish England off before heading to fight Russia, this is just comman sense you never run into a two front war unless it's understandably needed.
3. Don't waste military recerchers for pointless projects, basically any stupid Nazi idea that was scraped or impossible.

1) Scotland was not to be forgotten back then. It too would be an important fallback point, and Scapa Flow was important to the British Navy. Plus, morale was high up north, and losing London wouldn’t be a stopping point. They’d have to make it all the way to Inverness for a shred of official surrender, and the people wouldn’t sit down quietly either, would they?
2) Again, they’d need to station a lot of forces in Britain had they finally finished them off, which they couldn’t.
3) You know in hindsight that they were bad, but the Nazis didn’t.

[North Arkana]

You don't. It's literally impossible. Any extension of the war results in the use of Canned Instant Sunshine^TM to end the war in the Allie's favor.

[Scottish Socialists]

Per square mile.

*Acre

*metre

[Las Palmeras]

Had Japan chosen to invade Siberia instead of East Asia, that could have significantly altered the course of the war combined with Operation Barbarossa.

They wouldn't have. The Soviet–Japanese border conflicts sobered up even the IJA's stupid over-confidence and the only real edge they'd have had would've been their planes as the Soviet's outdated hardware was superior to that of the Japanese.

Then again, even that hypothetical face-off implies Japan would've had the logistics capacity to actually go for Kantokuen, which they didn't. Even if China wasn't bogging them down.

[The Democratic Nation of Unovia]

*Cracks knuckles*
First, Italy was a complete waste of an ally. The fact that Hitler had to save them in 1943 should have been a clue. Second, if Hitler had actually stuck to the 1939 agreement with Stalin, World War II would have still happened, it just might have been in 1949. Third, NOT INVADING RUSSIA, or, failing that, not going after Stalingrad when they could see the spires of Moscow. Even his commanders thought he was nuts then. Failing that, maybe taking a break during the winter and invading during Spring would have been better. Fourth, if he had followed HIS OWN ADVICE and dealt with Britain first, it might have stopped the USA from getting involved.
Lets talk about the Japanese now.
The failure to truly shut down the US at Pearl Harbor really hurt them. The fact that the Germans and the Japanese didn't work together during the war nor could really stand each other didn't help.

[The South Falls]

They don't. They did not have the manpower. Even if they had managed to subdue the RAF, they did not have enough fuel in their aircraft to mount large scale attacks without insane amounts of support and drop tanks, and they would not have been so easily been able to overrun the English army and royal navy. In Russia, the Russians had too many troops and tanks for their plans to succeed, and German tanks were often either inferior, unreliable, or barely produced. Germany had neither the might nor industrial capacity to win the war, and that is a fact. They would have had to start war planning in 1919, and that just was not possibility.

[Valrifell]

3) You know in hindsight that they were bad, but the Nazis didn’t.

Throwback to that time Norwegians raided a German heavy water plant because the Germans were mistaken in thinking the stuff was necessary for a fission bomb (it wasn't, as the Americans would discover) and effectively ended their hopes for the big bomb.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Simply not breaking the initial thrust in half would have given Case Blue a not insignificant chance of working.

That being said I can understand why the choice was made to push for Baku and the Caucasus early but with hindsight it was absolutely the wrong choice. Taking Stalingrad as the main objective and seizing control of the river and rail lines in the area would have made it an absolute pain for the Soviets to supply units south of the now German controlled territory and also would have wreaked havoc with the Soviets fuel.

Also kick out Paulus and put Schörner in charge of the whole thing.

That's the thing, though: if they concentrated on the big three cities of Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Moscow (because, let's face it, they absolutely were not going to give up on Moscow, and diverting from Leningrad would've been asinine strategically), they would've been utterly fucked on oil. If they tried to circumvent Stalingrad, they'd've been fucked by the major presence of hundreds of thousands of soldiers behind their lines.

While yes they absolutely were short on oil and that's a damn bad thing in this situation the Soviets would also very rapidly start having the same issues, and the Germans would then be free to seize the now cut off oil producing regions for themselves.

Had Japan chosen to invade Siberia instead of East Asia, that could have significantly altered the course of the war combined with Operation Barbarossa.

They wouldn't have. The Soviet–Japanese border conflicts sobered up even the IJA's stupid over-confidence and the only real edge they'd have had would've been their planes as the Soviet's outdated hardware was superior to that of the Japanese.

Then again, even that hypothetical face-off implies Japan would've had the logistics capacity to actually go for Kantokuen, which they didn't. Even if China wasn't bogging them down.

Quality wise the IJA could have given the Soviets a run for their money at least, even in 45 when the reds invaded Manchuria the Japanese and friends did an admirably good job of making the Soviets bleed for it.

The problem with the Japanese attacking the USSR from the east is that there's literally nothing valuable (except Vladivostok) for literally hundreds of miles.

[Galway-Dublin]

They couldn't;

On Germany's side:

An invasion of the Soviets was forced on them due to their dwindling oil reserves and their hefty requirement of such for their war machine. Germany could have just not invaded, but their armed forces, heavily reliant on crude oil, wouldn't be able to function without an eventual invasion of the Reds.

Their failure to achieve air supremacy over Britain and their inability to cripple the Royal Navy forced them away from an invasion of Britain to try to keep the Western front truly calm.

Also Nazi identification of atomic research as "Jewish science" was the death knell for Berlin developing the bomb first.

On Japan's:

Pearl Harbor makes sense: Japan needed to have control of the Dutch Indies to control necessary oil reserves that they needed to stock their navy, something even the United States would have been hesitant to, with its holding in the Philippines, to let the Empire have free reign over southeast Asia. Japan had no other choice but to deal with the United States, and to cripple their Pacific Navy the best they could is the only way they could have even attempted to start a conflict with the states that would end in Japanese victory.

The Axis Powers were in the unfortunate position of fighting a war of resources, a war that demanded military action to secure them in order for their military focuses to survive a prolonged war against Moscow, London, and Washington. The Nazi and Japanese war machines demanded oil, and with that demand came blood.

The only way the Axis Powers have a chance to defeat the Allies is for a radically different map of resources and geopolitics to stand that would prevent the demanding need by the Axis states to expand into conflicts with the nations that would by the end of it wipe the floor with them.

[The South Falls]

*Cracks knuckles*
First, Italy was a complete waste of an ally. The fact that Hitler had to save them in 1943 should have been a clue. Second, if Hitler had actually stuck to the 1939 agreement with Stalin, World War II would have still happened, it just might have been in 1949. Third, NOT INVADING RUSSIA, or, failing that, not going after Stalingrad when they could see the spires of Moscow. Even his commanders thought he was nuts then. Failing that, maybe taking a break during the winter and invading during Spring would have been better. Fourth, if he had followed HIS OWN ADVICE and dealt with Britain first, it might have stopped the USA from getting involved.
Lets talk about the Japanese now.
The failure to truly shut down the US at Pearl Harbor really hurt them. The fact that the Germans and the Japanese didn't work together during the war nor could really stand each other didn't help.

Stalin's generals were ready to strike Germany before Germany could strike. Stalin was just blind, though he was beginning to see signs when barbarossa hit. Russia does not conform to the basic capitals model, where if you subdue an enemy capital, you win. They would just fall back to the urals and destroy everything in their wake. The Japanese couldn't have worked with Germany under any circumstances. They just wanted 2 different things.

[North Arkana]

Seizing oilfield =/= being able to use them, much less transport the oil to where you need to refine it, and then actually being able to send said refined petroleum products to the units which need them.

[Far Easter Republic]

You don't. It's literally impossible. Any extension of the war results in the use of Canned Instant Sunshine^TM to end the war in the Allie's favor.

And Butthurt Ointment

[The South Falls]

Seizing oilfield =/= being able to use them, much less transport the oil to where you need to refine it, and then actually being able to send said refined petroleum products to the units which need them.

Or defend the oilfield from further attacks

[Christian Confederation]

Since the Nazis were the main threat I will focus on them, the Nazis could have easily won the war by doing a few simple things.
1. countinue the strategic boaming of southern England, this would weeken military assets in southern England clearing a way for a secsesful landing, plus the decision to stop boaming stritigic military Targets and Start boaming was a big mistake.
2. Finish England off before heading to fight Russia, this is just comman sense you never run into a two front war unless it's understandably needed.
3. Don't waste military recerchers for pointless projects, basically any stupid Nazi idea that was scraped or impossible.

1) Scotland was not to be forgotten back then. It too would be an important fallback point, and Scapa Flow was important to the British Navy. Plus, morale was high up north, and losing London wouldn’t be a stopping point. They’d have to make it all the way to Inverness for a shred of official surrender, and the people wouldn’t sit down quietly either, would they?
2) Again, they’d need to station a lot of forces in Britain had they finally finished them off, which they couldn’t.
3) You know in hindsight that they were bad, but the Nazis didn’t.

3. Yeah the Nazis did have some crazy ideas looking back, plus the scary thing is If the Nazis had compatint leadership they would've been a much larger threat and much more secsesful.

[Lucifersguardian]

One has to remember that the Pacific side never stopped after WWI. The blunder they had was attacking the US. Their resources/supply lines were already thin so when they went after the states they met a group that could pick off islands one by one. (Very short version of reality)

It was Japan that cost the AXIS the war.

Germany knew it couldn't fight Russia and US at same time. They discouraged the attacks on Pearl Harbor.

For the very short time the Reich existed, the advances in science (and by extent the military) were huge. They were just not big enough to over come self determination and one angry nation that was willing to help with that.

There is no plausible outcome where Germany or Japan would have won outright. All empires that stretch to far from their epicenter will eventually collapse. A lesson Americans refuse to be true. (Military presence in 165 different nation as one example.)

After awhile, Russia would win. They just had plenty of space to wear out the Nazis. then they would give the Japs the beating of their lives.

The problem with that is historically speaking the Russians only sustain attacks in regions where other Slavic people are. Yes there is exceptions like currently in Syria but overall they stay in their area of influence. Eventually they would of rolled back. Think about it, almost all of the USSR had Slavic people in them. Even thier sphere of influence stuck with the theme. Yes even the five Muslim republics....

[Washington Resistance Army]

Seizing oilfield =/= being able to use them, much less transport the oil to where you need to refine it, and then actually being able to send said refined petroleum products to the units which need them.

That, imo, wouldn't be that hard of a problem to rectify.

The bit about nukes however, is. Germany would have to cook up some magic way to knock out the UK to prevent having a country sized airbase right on their doorstep.

[North Arkana]

Seizing oilfield =/= being able to use them, much less transport the oil to where you need to refine it, and then actually being able to send said refined petroleum products to the units which need them.

That, imo, wouldn't be that hard of a problem to rectify.

The bit about nukes however, is. Germany would have to cook up some magic way to knock out the UK to prevent having a country sized airbase right on their doorstep.

Considering the US had a trans-atlantic bomber on the backburner for most of the war (which would turn into the B-36 post-war), even removing the UK doesn't guarantee CIS^TM isn't delivered to your doorstep by overnight air freight.

[The South Falls]

1) Scotland was not to be forgotten back then. It too would be an important fallback point, and Scapa Flow was important to the British Navy. Plus, morale was high up north, and losing London wouldn’t be a stopping point. They’d have to make it all the way to Inverness for a shred of official surrender, and the people wouldn’t sit down quietly either, would they?
2) Again, they’d need to station a lot of forces in Britain had they finally finished them off, which they couldn’t.
3) You know in hindsight that they were bad, but the Nazis didn’t.

3. Yeah the Nazis did have some crazy ideas looking back, plus the scary thing is If the Nazis had compatint leadership they would've been a much larger threat and much more secsesful.

Their leadership was competent, that is why they won in Poland. From their point of view, their decisions were sound. We look at it in hindsight and say they were idiotic.

[Scottish Socialists]

3. Yeah the Nazis did have some crazy ideas looking back, plus the scary thing is If the Nazis had compatint leadership they would've been a much larger threat and much more secsesful.

Their leadership was competent, that is why they won in Poland. From their point of view, their decisions were sound. We look at it in hindsight and say they were idiotic.

Exactly.
Except, most of their strategic decisions were based on hoping the British surrendered.
Invading France, Sea Lion, etc.
Like, even if sea lion happened, how are they supplying it?
Would they be able to supply it?
It would be a logistical nightmare, and a lot of Germany’s precious resources they might have gained in their territory would be used up supplying an invasion that would be hard to do and may not even succeed in the first place.

[Christian Confederation]

3. Yeah the Nazis did have some crazy ideas looking back, plus the scary thing is If the Nazis had compatint leadership they would've been a much larger threat and much more secsesful.

Their leadership was competent, that is why they won in Poland. From their point of view, their decisions were sound. We look at it in hindsight and say they were idiotic.

True but is not strange not a single person or group say Adolf that's insane, and will never work.

[North Arkana]

Their leadership was competent, that is why they won in Poland. From their point of view, their decisions were sound. We look at it in hindsight and say they were idiotic.

Exactly.
Except, most of their strategic decisions were based on hoping the British surrendered.
Invading France, Sea Lion, etc.
Like, even if sea lion happened, how are they supplying it?
Would they be able to supply it?
It would be a logistical nightmare, and a lot of Germany’s precious resources they might have gained in their territory would be used up supplying an invasion that would be hard to do and may not even succeed in the first place.

Sea Lion conceivably would have shortened the war. In the Allies' favor. Hell, they did a whole war game of it with British and German commanders.

[Greater Hunnia]

There's probably no way the Axis could have won, they were hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned. However, maybe fighting to a white peace could have been achieved. There were a great number of mistakes that can be identified easily in hindsight, however, most of them were related to German bureaucracy and sentiment rather than Hitler himself, as many would believe.

The first thing people tend to say is that the USSR should have been left alone. The problem is, that it was made clear both by Stalin's own words and by the Red Army's preparations, that they were waiting for an opportunity for the Western powers to be too busy killing each other and overrun them all. The Axis caught the USSR in the middle of their mobilization, with a textbook-perfect example of a preemptive strike.

One of the actual decisions that should have been made was forcing the nuclear program. The US was going to have it, and from that moment, winning against them conventionally was not possible. However, nukes, coupled with Germany's effort to develop missile launching submarines (with the V2) could have allowed a white peace based on the threat of MAD. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, Germany should not have declared war on the US the first place, but the US was never truly neutral, to begin with, as evidenced by Lend Lease. It is reasonable to believe that if they were confident in their victory (for example, due to being a nuclear monopoly), the US would have openly attacked Germany either way.

Secondly, all the flak Hitler gets for his supposed stupid decisions should be redirected to Hermann Göring. While Hitler made reasonably good decisions, often better than his generals up until 1944-45 when delusions and apparently, Parkinson's disease afflicted him, Göring made fiasco after fiasco. He assured Hitler that the Luftwaffe could handle the Allies at Dunkirk, which as we know, didn't happen. He assured Hitler that the Luftwaffe could support the Axis forces at Stalingrad via airdrops, which didn't happen. Worst of all, however, is that he was responsible for the bombing of civilian targets in England. Not only a horrid act of war crime but also a tactical mistake. Granted, the British started it, but Göring, and due to his convincing, Hitler caught the bait. Had the Luftwaffe ignored civilian targets and continued to decimate British industry and military targets, the British could have been taken out of the war. As the cherry on the cake, it should be noted that Göring was also corrupt to the bone, and when he was not making gigantic mistakes he was busy stuffing his own pockets with wealth taken from invaded countries. All in all, Hitler should have removed Göring from his position as early as the Battle of Britain.

Then, continuing on the British line, I think they should have assassinated Churchill. Not for his skill, charisma or his importance as a figurehead, but because he was the number one reason why Hitler could not make peace with Britain. Number two was the atrocities committed by the Luftwaffe, as I discussed it above. Without Churchill and without the mass murder of British civilians, Hitler's offers to peace could have been taken more seriously, and there could have been a chance for peace, however slim.

The people of Ukraine and some Russians initially welcomed the Germans as liberators, but soon, mistreatment changed their minds. Even with this, there existed the Russian Liberation Army and SS units hailing from the USSR's territory, which shows there was some willingness to fight alongside the Nazis against the commies. I think Germany should have tried to transform Operation Barbarossa into a new Russian Civil War by clever use of propaganda, by avoiding committing atrocities as much as possible, and most importantly by countering Soviet propaganda with a special emphasis on their false-flag operations.

Then, we have the Wunderwaffe craze. Not nearly as bad as many people would think - most of the proposed Wunderwaffe were actually very potent concepts, but people tend to remember only the stupidest ones like the P1000 or the Maus. This concept also includes things like guided SAM's, intercontinental bombers, ICBM's, missile launcher submarines, all of which were realized by the Allies after the war, no small part based on captured German documents and scientists. The problem was bureaucracy and what we can perceive as corruption in the development cycle. Projects were often commissioned and directed not on a basis of effectiveness and efficiency but on a basis of personal preferences and connections. The results were crippled development cycles and broken weapons born out of very much viable concepts.

Finally, I think Germany should have shared all but its most advanced technologies with its more reliable allies. Italians suffered greatly in Africa due to their obsolete, junk tank designs, and Hungary faced a similar problem at the Eastern front. The vast tank divisions of the Red Army were just too much for the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS to handle, and Germany's allies had little use against them without the proper equipment. Such things eventually happened, blueprints of the Pz VI Tiger and the ME-262, for example, were attempted to be shipped to Japan but far too late.