How could the Axis Powers win WW2?

[Risottia]

By not being stupid. Invading Russia and bombing Pearl Harbor was their greatest mistake. They could exhaust the UK and occupy all of China. C'mon, if the people wants to surrender Churchill can't stop them, right? Mission complete.

This is probably a one sided theory. The Axis also have limited resources. But they do have bigger guns and more men than UK.

To exhaust the UK you need to exhaust Canada, half of Africa, a good chunk of the Middle East, India (which includes also modern Pakistan and Bangladesh), Burma, Ceylon, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Belize...

Also, the best guns the Axis could field (the ones on the Bismarck-class and on the Littorio-class) were put out of use by British BIPLANES. Well, apart from the Yamato-class, a ship that ate so much fuel that they kept it mostly moored, and ran away when attacked by a destroyed escort, only to be sunk by torpedo bombers while on a suicide mission...

[Andsed]

By not being stupid. Invading Russia and bombing Pearl Harbor was their greatest mistake. They could exhaust the UK and occupy all of China. C'mon, if the people wants to surrender Churchill can't stop them, right? Mission complete.

This is probably a one sided theory. The Axis also have limited resources. But they do have bigger guns and more men than UK.

To exhaust the UK you need to exhaust Canada, half of Africa, a good chunk of the Middle East, India (which includes also modern Pakistan and Bangladesh), Burma, Ceylon, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Belize...

Also, the best guns the Axis could field (the ones on the Bismarck-class and on the Littorio-class) were put out of use by British BIPLANES.

Also not to mention the US which was supplying the UK and had a GDP higher than all the major Axis nations combined( and a higher one than all the other major allies combined.)

[Risottia]

To exhaust the UK you need to exhaust Canada, half of Africa, a good chunk of the Middle East, India (which includes also modern Pakistan and Bangladesh), Burma, Ceylon, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Belize...

Also, the best guns the Axis could field (the ones on the Bismarck-class and on the Littorio-class) were put out of use by British BIPLANES.

Also not to mention the US which was supplying the UK and had a GDP higher than all the major Axis nations combined( and a higher one than all the other major allies combined.)

Yep, but they weren't supplying Britain for free; while the British Empire could just command H.M's territories, colonies and whatnot to provide stuff and troops.

[Andsed]

Also not to mention the US which was supplying the UK and had a GDP higher than all the major Axis nations combined( and a higher one than all the other major allies combined.)

Yep, but they weren't supplying Britain for free; while the British Empire could just command H.M's territories, colonies and whatnot to provide stuff and troops.

True but even without the US exhausting the British empire was not exactly feasible for Germany.

[Risottia]

Yep, but they weren't supplying Britain for free; while the British Empire could just command H.M's territories, colonies and whatnot to provide stuff and troops.

True but even without the US exhausting the British empire was not exactly feasible for Germany.

Exactly my point.
Not that they didn't try, but Doenitz and Raeder couldn't strangle the shipping lanes with just subs and the odd lone raider, and Goering's flyboys proved to be totally inept at overseas patrol.

[Salus Maior]

They couldn't have.

[Seangoli]

Hitler was dumb, don’t invade the Soviets period.

This was born out of necessity, and frankly the Germans damn near pulled the offensive off.

The Germans were in desperate need of oil, and Russia was a looming behemoth. The ceasefire was, frankly, untenable fromboth a political and practical side. The philosophies of Naziism could notntolerate Bolshevism, amd the philosophies of Bolshevism would not tolerate Naziism. Following the 1939 pact, the Soviets were most certainly gearing up for an inevitable confrontation with Germany, and were constructing a truly terrifying war machine. The Germans were in the unenviable position of war starting with Soviets in 1941 or war with the Soviets in 1942-43, with two more years of build up.

As for hownthe Axisncould win WWII, they couldn't have. You cannot make enemies with literally every other major power in the world, accounting for nearly half the world's population, and expect any sort of good to come of it. Fundentally, Naziism is untenable if you are trying to fight a war, and the philosphy is what led them from one terrible decision to another. The only way the Germans coudl won was by abandoning Naziism as a philosophy, as that philosphy was central to who they fought amd why they fought.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

For the record, the whole "Russia is unbeatable" thing is overplayed. Plenty of people have successfully invaded Russia. Including Germany, which had a pretty easy time with Russia in WWI.

Has anyone actually invaded and beaten the Russians?

the Mongols.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Russia hasn't been conquered at all.

The Mongols.

The British haven't been conquered unless you count the Romans, and even then it only went as far as Scotland.

William "the Conqueror."

I wonder how he got that title.

[Ifreann]

Russia hasn't been conquered at all.

The Mongols.

The British haven't been conquered unless you count the Romans, and even then it only went as far as Scotland.

William "the Conqueror."

I wonder how he got that title.

He was very good at conkers.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

The Mongols.

William "the Conqueror."

I wonder how he got that title.

He was very good at conkers.

I suspect he valiantly defended England from Norman invasion.

[Seangoli]

Russia hasn't been conquered at all.

The Mongols.

The British haven't been conquered unless you count the Romans, and even then it only went as far as Scotland.

William "the Conqueror."

I wonder how he got that title.

The Japanese took the Korean Peninsula from Russia in 1904.

The Finnish Continuation war also was far, far more successful than Barbarosa ended up being, and they held the territory gained until 1944 when they, in an ironic twist, allief with Russia against the Germans.

The Time of Troubles saw the Swedes successfully invade, and hold, the teritory up to and around Novogorad.

Russia was, frankly, a laughing stock to the rest of the world for a long time. They were considered antiquated, at best, in almoat every way and woefully inept. The only reason why near total conquest of Russia rarely happened is because of how incredibly vast the country was.

[Alvecia]

Russia hasn't been conquered at all.

The Mongols.

The British haven't been conquered unless you count the Romans, and even then it only went as far as Scotland.

William "the Conqueror."

I wonder how he got that title.

Scandinavians took a big chunk out of our Eastern end at one point too iirc.

[Dogmeat]

Not really. Prior to some point in the early 1700s Poland would have likely been considered the greater military power. Their current reputation didn't really get started until until they defeated Sweden in 1708–1709. Which was impressive because back then Sweden was the military powerhouse of Europe. Yeah. Sweden. Really.

So if "always" means for 300 years-ish, and ignoring all the times that Russia couldn't get it's act together to defeat some minor power like Denmark or Japan, then maybe you have a point.

I always have a point. Because Russia has always been that one question in European affairs as long as a Russian nationstate has existed. You mention the Swedes being the dominant power, correct? They invaded Russia too. Guess who won. I'll let you in on a little hint: not Sweden.

It's difficult to take you seriously when you do things like this. Go back and read my post. Did I reference that exact thing you just referenced? Yes I did. I said it was the origin of Russia's current reputation. You're bringing it up like I'm not aware of it indicates that you're not reading or understanding my posts.

Or when I say "European nations tend not to be outright conquered, but have puppet regimes put in place," and then you come back to me with a list of nations that were "conquered" by having puppet regimes put in place.

[Costa Fierro]

The Japanese took the Korean Peninsula from Russia in 1904.

The Russians never held the Korean Peninsular. They wanted it, but didn't get it. Most of the land fighting took place in Manchuria.

The Finnish Continuation war also was far, far more successful than Barbarosa ended up being, and they held the territory gained until 1944 when they, in an ironic twist, allief with Russia against the Germans.

The Finns invaded Russia because they wanted territory they had lost in the Winter War, and once they had acquired that territory, they sat on it. They had no intention to conquer Russia or acquire additional territory, and once they saw what way the wind was blowing, they switched sides rather than be overrun by the Red Army.

The Time of Troubles saw the Swedes successfully invade, and hold, the teritory up to and around Novogorad.

And the Swedes still ended up losing.

[It's difficult to take you seriously when you do things like this. Go back and read my post. Did I reference that exact thing you just referenced? Yes I did. I said it was the origin of Russia's current reputation. You're bringing it up like I'm not aware of it indicates that you're not reading or understanding my posts.

Or when I say "European nations tend not to be outright conquered, but have puppet regimes put in place," and then you come back to me with a list of nations that were "conquered" by having puppet regimes put in place.

So you're admitting that you're wrong because instead of attacking the argument, you're attacking me.

[Vassenor]

The Mongols.

William "the Conqueror."

I wonder how he got that title.

Scandinavians took a big chunk out of our Eastern end at one point too iirc.

And the Angles. And the Saxons.

And the Dutch at one point.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Turns out conquering Russia isn't impossible, it's just hard to conquer an entity the size of a continent when you've already conquered a literal continent.

[The Black Party]

If the Axis didn't lose the propaganda war, and have the BUF fought harder, they could've easily won.

[Vassenor]

If the Axis didn't lose the propaganda war, and have the BUF fought harder, they could've easily won.

How?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

If the Axis didn't lose the propaganda war, and have the BUF fought harder, they could've easily won.

But that's wrong, sillyhead.

[Angleter]

By not being stupid. Invading Russia and bombing Pearl Harbor was their greatest mistake. They could exhaust the UK and occupy all of China. C'mon, if the people wants to surrender Churchill can't stop them, right? Mission complete.

This is probably a one sided theory. The Axis also have limited resources. But they do have bigger guns and more men than UK.

Britain could've held out for an extremely long time. It controlled the seas, and was able to trade effectively with the rest of the world. It also received vast shipments of supplies from the dominions, the colonies, and the USA. It would've taken quite a lot - the loss of Suez, the loss of India to the Japanese, the dominions and the USA ceasing supplies, and Hitler building a large enough navy to disrupt British convoys - to exhaust Britain. Alternatively, Hitler could just have built a massive air force and navy capable of mounting a successful invasion of Britain, but that would also have taken forever.

I'm not sure where, but I remember reading that the Nazis, who expected Britain to stay out of the war, only intended to confront Britain in 1945, once they'd got Europe and Russia firmly under control.

[Andsed]

If the Axis didn't lose the propaganda war, and have the BUF fought harder, they could've easily won.

Uh what? No offense but that makes little sense.

[Costa Fierro]

Turns out conquering Russia isn't impossible, it's just hard to conquer an entity the size of a continent when you've already conquered a literal continent.

That and not understanding the Russian mindset and why Russia is as vast as it is. And certainly why it was as the Soviet Union.

If the Axis didn't lose the propaganda war, and have the BUF fought harder, they could've easily won.

You mean BEF? Bit difficult to do if you're cut off.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Turns out conquering Russia isn't impossible, it's just hard to conquer an entity the size of a continent when you've already conquered a literal continent.

That and not understanding the Russian mindset and why Russia is as vast as it is. And certainly why it was as the Soviet Union.

I don't see why it's important to know how Russia expanded past the Urals as an invader.

[Costa Fierro]

I don't see why it's important to know how Russia expanded past the Urals as an invader.

If you don't understand why, then your invasion, and your chances of conquering Russia, are doomed to fail.

The whole point of Russia being so large is so it can simply keep moving back inside itself and drawing the enemy further and further inside. This puts immense pressure on the logistics of the invader and opens them up to counter offensives. Russia is well aware that its western borders are the most vulnerable part of Russia, so what better way to negate that is to have an unimaginably vast country from which your government and your industry can retreat into and continue fighting. Compare this with western European countries where if you conquer their capital, more often than not said country capitulates. So what if they capture land? So what if they capture Moscow? The military command is still intact, the army itself is still intact, the government is still intact, and your industries are still producing materiel and supplies to continue the fight. When you have built up enough strength, you can go on the offensive. The Russian's withdrawl into itself worked when the Swedes invaded, when the French invaded, and both times Germany invaded. Granted WW1 resulted in a peace treaty bought about by political instability rather than a military defeat, but the Swedish, French, and Nazi German invasions were all defeated because they could not continue fighting.

Not only that, many have underestimated the Russian's willingness and capacity to fight. Napoleon in 1812 spent four months waiting in a largely burnt out Moscow waiting for a peace offer from the Russians that never came. Eventually he would leave Russia with only 27,000 men, having lost 640,000 of the 680,000 he started out with. When Operation Barbarossa began, the German high command figured that it would take a couple of months before the Russians would capitulate. Taking Moscow, according to them, "would bring the whole rotten structure crashing to the ground". And while it very nearly happened, the fact was that not only was Russia willing to sacrifice the millions of men it took to overcome the Germans, it wasn't going to capitulate.