How could the Axis Powers win WW2?

[Costa Fierro]

Good video explaining a particular part of why Germany's attempt at invading the Soviet Union was doomed to failure.

Being a fascist does not mean you are antisemitic.

Fascism requires racism, as stated by Mussolini and Starace.
Jewishness is a threat to the national identity, as stated by Starace, again.

So, yes, fascism requires antisemitism.

What is Francoist Spain?

[Vassenor]

The BFC was never more than twenty people at a time, with most claiming they joined it purely to try and sabotage the Germans. It would not have accomplished anything.

Goebbels should have went directly to Himmler or whoever was in-charge of the Waffen-SS and formed the BFC much earlier. Preferably right after Dunkirk. Every British POW who wasn't a security threat should've have been enlisted into the BFC and forced to put on a smiley face for the German Press. That would've kept them popular with the UK.

The BFC was formed far too late to make any real impact, and was probably only given the go-ahead when German HC started panicking about the idea of the UK opening up a new front in the West. This is one of Hitler's many mistakes.

Or, again, it would've been brushed off as obvious cheap propaganda and ignored.

Seriously, it's looking like you just want to complain that we were fighting on the wrong side of the war from your perspective rather than put up any actual idea for how the war could've swung the other way.

[British Tackeettlaus]

Good video explaining a particular part of why Germany's attempt at invading the Soviet Union was doomed to failure.

Fascism requires racism, as stated by Mussolini and Starace.
Jewishness is a threat to the national identity, as stated by Starace, again.

So, yes, fascism requires antisemitism.

What is Francoist Spain?

Scholars consider it as conservative and authoritarian, rather than truly fascist. Historian Stanley G. Payne states, "scarcely any of the serious historians and analysts of Franco consider the Generalissimo to been a core fascist."

Just from wiki I know, but ok.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Good video explaining a particular part of why Germany's attempt at invading the Soviet Union was doomed to failure.

Fascism requires racism, as stated by Mussolini and Starace.
Jewishness is a threat to the national identity, as stated by Starace, again.

So, yes, fascism requires antisemitism.

What is Francoist Spain?

Aaand another memelord who unironically thinks Spain and Portugal were fascist...

[Risottia]

Good video explaining a particular part of why Germany's attempt at invading the Soviet Union was doomed to failure.

Fascism requires racism, as stated by Mussolini and Starace.
Jewishness is a threat to the national identity, as stated by Starace, again.

So, yes, fascism requires antisemitism.

What is Francoist Spain?

A compromise regime between fascist-aligned military and authoritarian clergy-led upper-and-middle bourgeoisie.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Good video explaining a particular part of why Germany's attempt at invading the Soviet Union was doomed to failure.



What is Francoist Spain?

A compromise regime between fascist-aligned military and authoritarian clergy-led upper-and-middle bourgeoisie.

The Falangists were merely allied with out of political convenience, and were rapidly discarded once their usefulness expired.

The same could be said about the Carlists.

[Costa Fierro]

Good video explaining a particular part of why Germany's attempt at invading the Soviet Union was doomed to failure.



What is Francoist Spain?

Aaand another memelord who unironically thinks Spain and Portugal were fascist...

"Memelord". Y'all got any actual arguments beyond shitty snark>

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Aaand another memelord who unironically thinks Spain and Portugal were fascist...

"Memelord". Y'all got any actual arguments beyond shitty snark>

You are the one with the burden of proof.

Prove to us that Spain and Portugal were actually ideologically fascist (none of that "crypto-fascist" vague bullshit excuse) outside of political alliances and short-term opportunity.

[Costa Fierro]

You are the one with the burden of proof.

I don't have burden of proof. Firstly I never mentioned Portugal and secondly, it is commonly accepted that Spain under Franco was fascist. Your job is to accept that as fact.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

You are the one with the burden of proof.

I don't have burden of proof. Firstly I never mentioned Portugal and secondly, it is commonly accepted that Spain under Franco was fascist. Your job is to accept that as fact.

And what made them fascist aside from alliances of convenience with the Falangists and flirtations with the Axis (which mean jack considering that Bulgaria was never fascist and Hungary remained so until the 1944 German-backed coup)?

[Bezkoshtovnya]

You are the one with the burden of proof.

I don't have burden of proof. Firstly I never mentioned Portugal and secondly, it is commonly accepted that Spain under Franco was fascist. Your job is to accept that as fact.

It is "considered" fascist but that does not necessarily mean it was. I mean, people consider Trump to be a fascist dicatator but that doesnt make it a fact.

[Nadiharu]

I don't have burden of proof. Firstly I never mentioned Portugal and secondly, it is commonly accepted that Spain under Franco was fascist. Your job is to accept that as fact.

It is "considered" fascist but that does not necessarily mean it was. I mean, people consider Trump to be a fascist dicatator but that doesnt make it a fact.

Spain in every since of the word was entirely fascist, aswell as Portugal. Spain has said it themselves multiple times.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

It is "considered" fascist but that does not necessarily mean it was. I mean, people consider Trump to be a fascist dicatator but that doesnt make it a fact.

Spain in every since of the word was entirely fascist, aswell as Portugal. Spain has said it themselves multiple times.

In every sense? I disagree. It shared a few aspects with true fascism but Francoism deviates heavily from many of the fascist principals. It may have been initially influenced by fascism in Italy but it completely became it's own separate ideology.

Also, Spain has said it? So? That really doesnt mean anything. The government of multiple states claim they are a democracy or another system and that does not suddenly make it an actuality.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

It is "considered" fascist but that does not necessarily mean it was. I mean, people consider Trump to be a fascist dicatator but that doesnt make it a fact.

Spain in every since of the word was entirely fascist, aswell as Portugal. Spain has said it themselves multiple times.

Everytime somebody unironically thinks Salazar is fascist, the Sanctuario de Cristo Rey fucking cries.

[Confederate States of German America]

I'm not the one grasping at straws here. Putting two vague tables together and then telling me that the Soviets were inferior and could be beaten by the Germans is grasping at straws.

There's nothing vague about it; the Soviets were outnumbered 8:1 in machine tools and massively outnumbered in steel, coal and aluminum production. This means they were industrially inferior in the aggregate to the Reich and thus defeat in a conflict between the two powers in a vacuum is assured. Even with the Reich in conflict with the Anglo-Americans, defeat for the USSR was a very serious prospect. This beyond dispute in any debate with a basis in historical reality.

Except it's not ignorance, it's fact. Not only was Germany limited by resources and did not match any of the Allies in industrial output, the Germans for a significant amount of time were not even devoting a majority of resource production to military needs, something which virtually every single country, including the Soviet Union did.

Germany utterly outclassed the Soviets in industrial production. Yes, I know you'll point out the Soviets built more tanks or planes but that is only part of the picture in a modern army. Let's look at some other categories shall we? Data being German/Soviet:

1942

Tanks and SP guns: 6,180 / 24,640
Armored cars: 982 / 2,623
Half-tracks: 10,152 / 0
Trucks: 81,276 / 30,947
Cars: 27,895 / 2,567
Locomotives: 2,637 / 9
Train cars: 60,892 / 147

1943

Tanks and SP guns: 12,063 / 24,092
Armored cars: 806 / 1,820
Half-tracks: 16,964 / 0
Trucks: 109,483 / 45,545
Cars: 34,478 / 2,546
Locomotives: 5,243 / 43
Train cars: 66,263 / 108

1944

Tanks and SP guns: 19,002 / 28,983
Armored cars: 485 / 3,000
Half-tracks: 17,143 / 0
Trucks: 89,069 / 53,467
Cars: 21,656 / 5,382
Locomotives: 3,495 / 32
Train cars: 45,189 / 13

I'm not even including Naval production, which further demonstrates the Industrial superiority of the Reich over the Soviets. One can definitely argue the USSR was more efficiently able to use their resources, and this has largely been proven to an extent by people like Adam Tooze and such, but cannot argue that the Soviets beat the Germans overall in raw output.

Soviet combat vehicle production between 1939 and 1945 reached a total of 118,583 units. Total German combat vehicle production was 49,777 units. Losses of these vehicles was correct for the Soviet Union, but to even claim that Soviet losses were higher than production is flat out wrong.

Uh, no. According to Steve Zaloga's The Red Army Handbook, Soviet production for the war years was as follows:

1941: 6,274
1942: 24,639
1943: 19,959
1944: 16,975
1945: 4,384
Total: 72,231

Losses, meanwhile:

1941: 20,500
1942: 15,000
1943: 22,400
1944: 16,900
1945: 8,700
Total: 83,500

[Confederate States of German America]

Russia allied itself with Germany, and they started WWII together, invading Poland. If the soviets used their 10's of millions of men and actually decent technology (many german weapons, notably the G43, were based on soviet weapons), then possibly, they could have achieved more results, although winning is unlikely. Taking over swaths of Europe and Africa, yes. With the development of the Ak-47, which occured in 1947, and soviet manpower nad weapons not being drained by the germans but assisted, and the soviets giving oil to Germany who drastically needed it (with massive oil shortages), they could have done alright. Granted much of soviet industry was due to allied help, but it was still better than the germans in many way, and the germans had things the soviets didn't. If the americans had to face 28 million Russians and 12 million germans, it would have been more likely that only half of Germany was taken, like what happened in the cold war, but that the german government would still exist in some capacity.

Instead of a victory per se we get a stalemate, like the real cold war that actually happened, but only with the soviets and germans both considerably better off.

One flaw with this plan. The flaw is that it would never happen. The Nazis and Soviets hated each other they were never going to ally.

Not at all, as into late 1940 there was high level discussions ongoing about creating a formal alliance between the two. August of 1940 seems to have been the decisive date, and ultimately neither side could come to an agreement. Problem was Stalin had taken more than he was allotted under the Molotov Pact, flaring Hitler's paranoia and this was compounded by the Soviets wanting more concessions in the Danube region and a free hand for another war with Finland. Given Germany's desire for Finnish Nickel from Petsamo and oil from Romania, further concessions would place Germany in too awkward of a strategic position if the Soviets started playing hardball and about this time is when planning for Barbarossa accelerated as Hitler gave up on his then desire of an eastern alliance.

[The National Salvation Front for Russia]

Not at all, as into late 1940 there was high level discussions ongoing about creating a formal alliance between the two. August of 1940 seems to have been the decisive date, and ultimately neither side could come to an agreement. Problem was Stalin had taken more than he was allotted under the Molotov Pact, flaring Hitler's paranoia and this was compounded by the Soviets wanting more concessions in the Danube region and a free hand for another war with Finland. Given Germany's desire for Finnish Nickel from Petsamo and oil from Romania, further concessions would place Germany in too awkward of a strategic position if the Soviets started playing hardball and about this time is when planning for Barbarossa accelerated as Hitler gave up on his then desire of an eastern alliance.

Do you have a source for this?

[Costa Fierro]

There's nothing vague about it; the Soviets were outnumbered 8:1 in machine tools and massively outnumbered in steel, coal and aluminum production.

No they were not.

This beyond dispute in any debate with a basis in historical reality.

And historical reality shows that Germany was defeated in war, and that the Soviet flag was raised over Berlin.

Germany utterly outclassed the Soviets in industrial production.

No they did not.

Uh, no.

Uh, yes.

According to Steve Zaloga's The Red Army Handbook, Soviet production for the war years was as follows:

1941: 6,274
1942: 24,639
1943: 19,959
1944: 16,975
1945: 4,384
Total: 72,231

Losses, meanwhile:

1941: 20,500
1942: 15,000
1943: 22,400
1944: 16,900
1945: 8,700
Total: 83,500

Uncited as always.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Uncited as always.

It's literally right here

[Costa Fierro]

Uncited as always.

It's literally right here

So I'm supposed to go on Amazon and look it up even though the Wiki article I cited has plenty of citations that disproves the theory of the "invincible Reich"?

[Confederate States of German America]

Do you have a source for this?

Here.

[Confederate States of German America]

No they were not.

Yes, they were as I already cited here. I'll restate them:

Steel
USSR: 8,070
Germany: 32,100

Aluminium
USSR: 52,000
Germany: 263,900

Coal
USSR: 48,951
Germany: 338,200

Machine tools
USSR: 160,104*
Germany: 813,880

*Includes Lend Lease imports of 44,000 units. All figures in thousands of tons, except machine tools.

Citations are Soviet Industrial Production 1940-1945 and Steel, Coal and the German War Economy. You can retract your false claim.

And historical reality shows that Germany was defeated in war, and that the Soviet flag was raised over Berlin.

Which ignores the war was not just between the Soviets and the Reich and that the topic of this thread is the question of how the Axis could win the war, not whether they did or not.

No they did not.

Yes, they did. I've already cited German production figures of other war goods but you'll find this same exact pattern in munitions and definitely so in naval production as well.

Uncited as always.

Is English not your first language? What part of this did you not understand:

According to Steve Zaloga's The Red Army Handbook, Soviet production for the war years was as follows:

I gave the title of the book and the authors name, this is a textbook example of giving a citation. If you're unable to tell this, you probably don't need to be posting at all.

[Novus America]

Without Lend-Lease, and the logistical support provide by the US the Soviets would have very likely lost.

“Today [1963] some say the Allies didn't really help us ... But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.[35]”
Marshal Georgy Zhukov

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

Stalin and Khrushchev also stated the same.

After the war the Soviets and latter Russian governments tried to sweep this fact under the rug, for obvious political reasons.

Admitting their biggest victory would not have happened without the US is something they are loathe to do of course.

[Novus America]

One flaw with this plan. The flaw is that it would never happen. The Nazis and Soviets hated each other they were never going to ally.

Not at all, as into late 1940 there was high level discussions ongoing about creating a formal alliance between the two. August of 1940 seems to have been the decisive date, and ultimately neither side could come to an agreement. Problem was Stalin had taken more than he was allotted under the Molotov Pact, flaring Hitler's paranoia and this was compounded by the Soviets wanting more concessions in the Danube region and a free hand for another war with Finland. Given Germany's desire for Finnish Nickel from Petsamo and oil from Romania, further concessions would place Germany in too awkward of a strategic position if the Soviets started playing hardball and about this time is when planning for Barbarossa accelerated as Hitler gave up on his then desire of an eastern alliance.

But the plan failed.
While they were willing to work together for a common goal (such as the destruction and genocide of Poles) the world (let alone Europe) was not big enough for both Hitlter’s and Stalin’s egos. This combined with their paranoia, mental instability, and the conflicting ideologies made it pretty much impossible.

Unless both the Soviet and Nazi governments were couped and replaced by more pragmatic, less ideological leaders one was turning on the other. It was not a matter of if, merely when.

[Zandovia]

1: Germany needed to cancel the holocaust, several Jewish peoples helped create the nuclear weapon, and even though it was not known that the nuclear weapon would be a factor in Japanese loss, preforming the holocaust wastes so much material and money, and makes a bad reputation on your country.

2: Italy Should have made a better protection on its southern border, to stop the American invasion of Italy, and even if it didn't stop them, they shouldn't have surrendered after they lost one battle.

3: Japan shouldn't have attacked Hawaii, or any american controlled area (Philippians) and although they had a lot of natural resources (what japan wanted) they should have gone after the Soviet Union more, and take the oil, natural gas, and rubber they have their. America disliked the Soviet Union at the time, and attacking them may put america out of the war for a bit longer.

4: Germany should have not invaded the USSR until Japan could do the above thing, distracting the Soviet forces, and then should have invaded with more winter gear, so they could continue the assault in winter.

5: Germany and Italy needed to make a better navy, and even though the german U-Boat was a successful submarine, they really had no other effective naval machine.

6: Germany shouldn't have targeted american supply boats, and if Japan made the soviet invasion, and germany did all the things above, America may not have been in the war for a few more years, and if the soviets were gone, and america not in the war, Britain and north africa would fall easily, and the war would be won