How could the Axis Powers win WW2?

[Infected Mushroom]

There is a fucking lot wrong with this. First off Germany and Japan did not work together because they were not really allies more of people with roughly the same enemy. Hell they even impeded each other at times like when Germany actually helped the Chinese. Secondly the Nazis hated the Slavs so you would need to change everything about the Nazis. Third Japan did not want to go to war with Soviets due to brutal battles with them prior leaving only the south part of Asia to invade so they could deal with their lack of oil and for this pearl harbor needed to be dealt with. Fourth the Brits were not just let go at Dunkirk the Germans tired to stop them but the French and Belgian rear guard and the RAF stopped them and the Brits still took large losses. There is more wrong here but I am on mobile but most of what your describing here would have never happened.

Everything I said is HYPOTHETICAL. This did not happened I just described what would be necessary to the Axis to win the war. And, although Nazis hated Slavs because of their racism, I describes what would happened if the idea of establishing Reichsprotektorats in the Russia. It is "wrong" because is hypothetical. It is wrong because it didn't happened. Axis lost, Allied won, but this thread is about stating what was necessary to the Axis to win the war, not what really happened.

correct

[The New California Republic]

But then they wouldn't be Nazis...

For all intents and purposes they would still be known throughout history as the Nazis

You are splitting hairs. The word would exist but it would mean something entirely different. And it is actually debatable whether they would be known as that if their entire mode of being was different.

[Infected Mushroom]

For all intents and purposes they would still be known throughout history as the Nazis

You are splitting hairs. The word would exist but it would mean something entirely different. And it is actually debatable whether they would be known as that if their entire mode of being was different.

I’m not suggesting something radical here

It’s just common tactical sense

I know you started the game with a plan to take over Russia and hopefully ally with the west. But once you started grabbing land, russia’s more or less cool with it while UK and France are the ones wanting to kill you.

So at that point WHY would you not want to try and get Russia on your team?

Just change your rhetoric to adapt with how the map is playing out dude

[Baltenstein]

You seem to assume that the NSDAP made up the idea of conquering Russia from scratch and thus could have just as well opted for picking a different country as a target of their ideological fanaticism instead.
The idea of achieving Lebensraum (i.e.: "Subjugate Eastern Europe, colonize it with German settlers and turn its national economies into your domestic market") was something that had been around in German ultranationalist circles since before 1900, mainly as a vision to deal with what was seen as a very problematic future for Germany, caused by its rapid population growth in combination with its relative resource poorness.
The experience of World War 1 cemented the idea even more firmly in the mindset of German nationalism and militarism, by making it clear that Germany would forever be outclassed by the maritime powers Britain and later the US if it hadn't an autarkical (read: immune to embargos and naval blockades) geopolitical and economic space comparable to theirs (which, very obviously, Poland alone could not have possibly provided).
The fact that Russia became a communist state after WW1 gave the whole affair a massive boost in ideological urgency. These were the political circles who dreamt about carving up Russia when it was still a conservative monarchy like themselves, you think they could have co-existed with it when it became their self-declared ideological antithesis?
So long story short, why would the Nazis have given up the one goal that had motivated them into joining and implementing their ideology in the first place?

Because if they looked at the map, they would have realized that to rigidly follow ideology would mean fighting a country bigger than all of Europe combined in land mass (more then 7 times bigger maybe?)

It would have been more pragmatic to keep large gains in Europe from France to the Balkans and then use the Soviets as an ally against the British

Good job at not reading and/or comprehending pretty much anything I wrote on the rise of the "Lebensraum" ideology. By your logic, they shouldn't have challenged the British Empire/the US either, because those two were also several times bigger than Germany in both landmass and economic/industrial capabilities. The "pragmatist" route, as you put it, would have been to accept Germany's role as a junior-partner in the Euro-Atlantic order of things, i.e., what the Weimar Republic was already doing and what Western Germany did after WW2.
In other words, why bother with dictatorship and expansive militarism in the first place then?

[Infected Mushroom]

Because if they looked at the map, they would have realized that to rigidly follow ideology would mean fighting a country bigger than all of Europe combined in land mass (more then 7 times bigger maybe?)

It would have been more pragmatic to keep large gains in Europe from France to the Balkans and then use the Soviets as an ally against the British

Good job at not reading and/or comprehending pretty much anything I wrote on the rise of the "Lebensraum" ideology. By your logic, they shouldn't have challenged the British Empire/the US either, because those two were also several times bigger than Germany in both landmass and economic/industrial capabilities. The "pragmatist" route, as you put it, would have been to accept Germany's role as a junior-partner in the Euro-Atlantic order of things, i.e., what the Weimar Republic was already doing and what Western Germany did after WW2.
In other words, why bother with dictatorship and expansive militarism in the first place then?

Britain is a lot weaker than it looks because it will hesitate to arm/fully mobilize its colonial population

They looked huge on paper but in practice they had to fight a protracted war with only one hand or risk losing their empire by default (they ended up losing it anyways)

[Ifreann]

You seem to assume that the NSDAP made up the idea of conquering Russia from scratch and thus could have just as well opted for picking a different country as a target of their ideological fanaticism instead.
The idea of achieving Lebensraum (i.e.: "Subjugate Eastern Europe, colonize it with German settlers and turn its national economies into your domestic market") was something that had been around in German ultranationalist circles since before 1900, mainly as a vision to deal with what was seen as a very problematic future for Germany, caused by its rapid population growth in combination with its relative resource poorness.
The experience of World War 1 cemented the idea even more firmly in the mindset of German nationalism and militarism, by making it clear that Germany would forever be outclassed by the maritime powers Britain and later the US if it hadn't an autarkical (read: immune to embargos and naval blockades) geopolitical and economic space comparable to theirs (which, very obviously, Poland alone could not have possibly provided).
The fact that Russia became a communist state after WW1 gave the whole affair a massive boost in ideological urgency. These were the political circles who dreamt about carving up Russia when it was still a conservative monarchy like themselves, you think they could have co-existed with it when it became their self-declared ideological antithesis?
So long story short, why would the Nazis have given up the one goal that had motivated them into joining and implementing their ideology in the first place?

Because if they looked at the map, they would have realized that to rigidly follow ideology would mean fighting a country bigger than all of Europe combined in land mass (more then 7 times bigger maybe?)

It would have been more pragmatic to keep large gains in Europe from France to the Balkans and then use the Soviets as an ally against the British

The pragmatism you are advocating is impossible for Nazis. It is a key tenet of their belief that "Judeo-Bolshevism" is an existential threat to the German people, and also that the Russians are untermensch, inferior, sub-humans.

[The Srovsk State]

The Germans should have taken over most of Europe first, which he did. Before the invasion of the USSR, The Axis in europe should first seize control of french syria and iraq to gain oil which was their most scarcest resource at the time. After that, Germany needs to refrain from declaring war on the United States. With the oil secured and Iron and coal imports from Sweden secure as well, a German surge into the Soviet invasion will gain momentum. What is left to deal with is the British, I would say that the Axis should make an Atlantic wall and a strong enough navy to harass
American supplies to the British. Now is the time to invade the USSR with an unexpected surprise blitzkrieg, The Soviets won't surrender when Moscow is captured and so the Germans have to quickly take as much territory from the USSR as possible and force their surrender.

For japan in the pacific, I have no idea

[Valrifell]

Pearl Harbor may have been the direct casus belli for the US to intervene in the war, but I assure you all we would've gotten involved anyway at some point.

[Infected Mushroom]

Because if they looked at the map, they would have realized that to rigidly follow ideology would mean fighting a country bigger than all of Europe combined in land mass (more then 7 times bigger maybe?)

It would have been more pragmatic to keep large gains in Europe from France to the Balkans and then use the Soviets as an ally against the British

The pragmatism you are advocating is impossible for Nazis. It is a key tenet of their belief that "Judeo-Bolshevism" is an existential threat to the German people, and also that the Russians are untermensch, inferior, sub-humans.

... but why would you believe in the racial inferiority of a country that was militarily your equal/superior and was more than 100 times your size?

[Valrifell]

The pragmatism you are advocating is impossible for Nazis. It is a key tenet of their belief that "Judeo-Bolshevism" is an existential threat to the German people, and also that the Russians are untermensch, inferior, sub-humans.

... but why would you believe in the racial inferiority of a country that was militarily your equal/superior and was more than 100 times your size?

Can I let you in on a little secret?

Fascism isn't a rational ideology.

[Baltenstein]

Good job at not reading and/or comprehending pretty much anything I wrote on the rise of the "Lebensraum" ideology. By your logic, they shouldn't have challenged the British Empire/the US either, because those two were also several times bigger than Germany in both landmass and economic/industrial capabilities. The "pragmatist" route, as you put it, would have been to accept Germany's role as a junior-partner in the Euro-Atlantic order of things, i.e., what the Weimar Republic was already doing and what Western Germany did after WW2.
In other words, why bother with dictatorship and expansive militarism in the first place then?

Britain is a lot weaker than it looks because it will hesitate to arm/fully mobilize its colonial population

They looked huge on paper but in practice they had to fight a protracted war with only one hand or risk losing their empire by default (they ended up losing it anyways)

You know who else looked huge on paper but - in the eyes of world opinion - failed miserably at subjugating even a small rural country in 1940?
I'm not talking about Italy.

[The New California Republic]

You are splitting hairs. The word would exist but it would mean something entirely different. And it is actually debatable whether they would be known as that if their entire mode of being was different.

I’m not suggesting something radical here

It’s just common tactical sense

I know you started the game with a plan to take over Russia and hopefully ally with the west. But once you started grabbing land, russia’s more or less cool with it while UK and France are the ones wanting to kill you.

So at that point WHY would you not want to try and get Russia on your team?

Just change your rhetoric to adapt with how the map is playing out dude

The USSR was always going to be a threat to Nazi Germany. Thinking Nazi Germany wouldn't invade the USSR involves completely redefining what the Nazis were. You would be better to spend your time looking at how to win Barbarossa than trying to change the appearance and constitution of the playing piece.

[The Huskar Social Union]

The pragmatism you are advocating is impossible for Nazis. It is a key tenet of their belief that "Judeo-Bolshevism" is an existential threat to the German people, and also that the Russians are untermensch, inferior, sub-humans.

... but why would you believe in the racial inferiority of a country that was militarily your equal/superior and was more than 100 times your size?

Because they were a bunch of racist fucking halfwits who thought they were the master race.

Racism and Rationality dont mix.

[Baltenstein]

The pragmatism you are advocating is impossible for Nazis. It is a key tenet of their belief that "Judeo-Bolshevism" is an existential threat to the German people, and also that the Russians are untermensch, inferior, sub-humans.

... but why would you believe in the racial inferiority of a country that was militarily your equal/superior and was more than 100 times your size?

Why would you believe that a nomadic people who, according to you, is inferior at everything and good for nothing, is somehow capable of controlling racially superior and vastly larger nations behind the scenes?
That's the thing with fanatics, they rarely make sense to anyone but themselves.

And it has been explained to you where the idea that Germany must inevitably conquer Russia originally came from, and what its train-of-thought was. Don't make people repeat themselves.

[Fascist PRUESSENS]

By not being Nazis.

You can’t win a war if you don’t make it even happen.

Modern Problems require Modern Solutions

[Fascist PRUESSENS]

If they improve their navy and finally invade the UK and not attacking the Soviets and the Americans

[Ifreann]

The pragmatism you are advocating is impossible for Nazis. It is a key tenet of their belief that "Judeo-Bolshevism" is an existential threat to the German people, and also that the Russians are untermensch, inferior, sub-humans.

... but why would you believe in the racial inferiority of a country that was militarily your equal/superior and was more than 100 times your size?

Because believing yourself the master race necessitates believing any others inferior.

[Vassenor]

The pragmatism you are advocating is impossible for Nazis. It is a key tenet of their belief that "Judeo-Bolshevism" is an existential threat to the German people, and also that the Russians are untermensch, inferior, sub-humans.

... but why would you believe in the racial inferiority of a country that was militarily your equal/superior and was more than 100 times your size?

Racial Supremacy is at best inherently illogical, and at worst absolutely divorced from reality to an insane degree.

[Andsed]

If they improve their navy and finally invade the UK and not attacking the Soviets and the Americans

Yeah uh no. The German navy was never a match for the Royal Navy and the us could easily out produce Germany and supply the UK.

[Angleter]

Short of convincing Britain to sue for peace in 1940, the only option I can think of is piling effort into North Africa and (eventually) the Middle East after the fall of France and before invading the USSR. North Africa aside, the Nazis did have some friendly relations with Arab leaders (Haj Amin al-Husayni), did try to take over Iraq in 1941, and were friendly enough with Iran that the British and Soviets launched a coup there that same year, so it's not like the area was totally neglected in reality.

If the Axis powers had managed to break through in Egypt in 1940/41, and then were able to sweep through the Levant and bring local powers (Iraq and Iran, possibly also Turkey) into their orbit, then they'd have controlled Suez, relieved their perennial fuel shortage, and opened up a new front with the Soviets for when they'd eventually invade – if they obtained Iranian or Turkish permission to invade the USSR through their territory, then the Baku oil fields would've been within striking distance. That may well have been enough to get them to Moscow, and perhaps also Leningrad and Stalingrad. That would've made supply and communications considerably more difficult for the Soviets.

Obviously it's no guarantee of success:

• The Allies could've thwarted Nazi access to Middle Eastern oil fields even if they lost the region
• The delay in invading the USSR could have given Stalin more time to prepare, or even to pre-emptively attack Hitler
• The Soviets may have still been able to win on the Eastern Front even after losing Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad (and could still have been a drain on Nazi resources even if they retreated to the Urals and kept fighting a low level war there)
• The Royal Navy and RAF would still have been significant opponents even without Suez and the Middle East, and they'd have been particularly determined to control the Mediterranean and regain Suez
• It would still have taken several years to prepare a successful invasion of Britain (unless they sued for peace after the defeat of the USSR)
• Saving Japan in the Pacific would have been a huge challenge, and I'm not sure how it could have worked (unless, again, the Allies sued for peace after the defeat of the USSR)
• The Americans would've still got the nuclear bomb first

But there we go. Happily, the real-life Nazis lost.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

To generalize this, Nazi victory in WW2 was practically impossible after 1940. Invading the Soviet Union was a death sentence for the Reich, and while you could simply say that they could just not invade the USSR, it's not really as simple as that.
First, Germany was incredibly overconfident after 1940. France had defeated them in the Great War, and they crushed it while fighting a two front war in less than two years, so of course they're going to think that they're unbeatable, so of course they're going to attack the USSR.
Second, even if they didn't attack the Soviets, the Soviets were going to attack them. Stalin hated Hitler as much as Hitler hated Stalin, and an invasion of Germany was slated for 1943.
Third, to go on a slight tangent, one could state that without the United States, the USSR couldn't defeat Germany. This is wrong. America had very little impact on the overall picture of the European theater until D-Day, which happened in 1944, and the Soviets were already winning by then. If America doesn't get involved, then the most significant outcome is that the Soviets can basically do whatever they want with Europe after the defeat of Germany.
And fourth, to go on a bigger tangent, even if Germany did win WW2, then they wouldn't last very long after the war is over. Resistance movements were already taking a serious toll after only a few years of activity, and there's absolutely no way that they could maintain control over all of Europe for very long, especially not if they keep being Nazis and killing everyone they conquered.

[Risottia]

The pragmatism you are advocating is impossible for Nazis. It is a key tenet of their belief that "Judeo-Bolshevism" is an existential threat to the German people, and also that the Russians are untermensch, inferior, sub-humans.

... but why would you believe in the racial inferiority of a country that was militarily your equal/superior and was more than 100 times your size?

A Marxist like me would point out that this is the effects of idealism, as opposed to materialism. Fascism is an implementation of idealism, while socialism is an implementation of materialism.

In idealism, reality must follow the ideas, while in materialism ideas must adapt to reality (warning: extremely crude oversimplification!)
So, if the ideology says "we're superior to them", the idealist must accept this in spite of the fact that reality tells otherwise: clearly, the perception of reality must be wrong if we appear to be inferior!

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

The pragmatism you are advocating is impossible for Nazis. It is a key tenet of their belief that "Judeo-Bolshevism" is an existential threat to the German people, and also that the Russians are untermensch, inferior, sub-humans.

... but why would you believe in the racial inferiority of a country that was militarily your equal/superior and was more than 100 times your size?

Because they didn't want to admit that Russia was militarily equal or superior to Germany.

[Risottia]

Third, to go on a slight tangent, one could state that without the United States, the USSR couldn't defeat Germany. This is wrong. America had very little impact on the overall picture of the European theater until D-Day, ...

...militarily, they had little impact (well, not in North Africa, which means Mediterranean, which means Europe...).

But logistically and industrially, both Britain and the Soviet Union received a LOT of help from America, whose enormous industrial power had the rather large advantage of being completely safe from Axis bombing. It would be a stretch to say that without America, Russia and Britain would have fallen, but the sheer amount of trucks, ball-bearings, chemicals, explosives and whatnot that America lent to Britain and Russia was even more important than having ten American divisions fighting in Europe.

[Infected Mushroom]

... but why would you believe in the racial inferiority of a country that was militarily your equal/superior and was more than 100 times your size?

Because they didn't want to admit that Russia was militarily equal or superior to Germany.

But did they actually know or?