How could the Axis Powers win WW2?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

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.

tbf you're supposed to give a page or chapter as well but this ain't English class.

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.

Jewish scientists already fled before the Holocaust. It's just good sense that you shouldn't be in a country where the government literally says everything is your fault.

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.

Some superheavy tanks would've really helped there.

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.

Previous battles had already indicated that a war with the Soviet Union would have been sketchy at best. Plus trying to occupy Siberian AND Chinese territory was exceedingly difficult for the overextended IJA.

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.

See what CSGA has to say about that above.

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.

The British kept destroying their other effective naval machines. In a choice between using steel for ships for a potential sea war and using steel for ground equipment in an immediate ground war, I'd rather focus on the ground war.

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

Since Germany couldn't really do all of the above and not targeting American supply boats means more supplies going to Britain and the Soviet Union, highly doubtful.

[Torrocca]

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

Funny how your lists for production numbers there exclude some very important pieces of equipment that win wars, such as small arms, artillery, planes, or even munitions. I bet we'd get a much nicer picture with those involved.

[Rusthenia]

No.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbim2kGwhpc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYTrjxOPYNY

[Torrocca]

Actually, to expand on my point above: it's even funnier how OEP's argument doesn't include vital points, such as the simplicity or complexity of the developed equipment produced by either the USSR or Nazi Germany (to the point where workshops in cities that were under siege could still churn out dozens of PPSh-41s or where factories in cities such as Stalingrad were still pumping out T-34s even as Nazi forces were rolling up to the factory doors, for instance, whereas Nazi small arms and most equipment had to be specifically produced in factories under stringent conditions thanks to the requirements of these more complex weapons systems). For comparison, the PPSh-41, which had 6 million units produced, only featured 87 parts total, almost all of which but the barrel itself could be created in any workshop with the most rudimentary of tools, whereas the MP-40 featured 110 parts, more of which required factory machinery to produce, and only had 1 million units created throughout the entirety of World War Two.

On the part about artillery: Nazi Germany only produced about 160,000 pieces of all types, including anti-tank and anti-air guns (which total to 110,000 pieces out of that total number, reducing the actual amount of dedicated artillery to just 50,000 pieces). Contrast this with Soviet production, which produced nearly five times that number of artillery, including AA and AT pieces. Similarly, contrast, for instance, machine gun production: the Germans produced about 700,000 pieces throughout the war, whereas the Soviets doubled that number. Mortars also have a hilarious contrast, with the Nazis not even being able to produced 100,000 pieces whereas the Soviets were able to pump their numbers up to around 400,000 total pieces.

At the end of the day, OEP's numbers are disingenuous because they deliberately ignore how absurdly out-gunned the Nazis were compared to the Soviets. The Soviets had more tanks, more small arms, more artillery, more planes (in the three combat categories of fighter planes, ground-attack planes, and bombers (in an addendum to this, the Soviets more than likely had air superiority across the Eastern Front as early as Operation Uranus, if this source and its two cited sources are to be believed)) and thus a much greater ability to commit to combat operations than the Nazis ever could. A hundred thousand trains mean jack-fucking-shit at the end of the day if your enemy has more troops, weapons, armored fighting vehicles, planes, and artillery than you do, can produce all those things more effectively and cheaply, resource-wise, than you can by making them as simple as possible, unlike you with your complex machinery and dozens of variants to weapons and vehicles, and can use them to retake over a thousand miles of lost territory and kick your ass all the way back to your own capital in just about three years.

[Liberated Communist States]

No.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbim2kGwhpc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYTrjxOPYNY

Hello Rusthenia.

[Costa Fierro]

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

No they were not.

You can retract your false claim.

I'm not going to, because it's not false. Virtually everyone else says the Germans were incapable of outstripping the Soviets. Except the Wehraboo.

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.

Most of Germany's Axis allies very much lacked the industrial development and capacity to wage war. Germany was really the only fully industrualised nation in the European Axis, even Italy was largely agrarian with a limited industrial base from which a functional armed forces could develop. Hence why many German allies either used German equipment or licensed designs of weapons, combat vehicles, and aircraft. Germany was the only country essentially capable of waging war in the entire Axis coalition. The Italians sure couldn't, the only country they beat in the interwar period was Ethiopia and they failed to invade and conquer Greece, by all means a comparatively weak nation, twice.

Japan was also very industrialised but it lacked the resources in the home islands themselves and was reliant on imports, hence why it embarked on a major campaign to take resource-rich parts of Southeast Asia. It was somewhat successful but ultimately doomed to failure because Japanese forces were overextended and their lines of supply were incredibly vulnerable.

Germany was basically carrying the team by itself (well in Europe at least, and look how well that went) and it simply lacked the ability to maintain not only the initiative, but maintain the industrial output necessary to continue the war to the point where it could be won. Part of that can be attributed to the OKW/OKH and their lack of strategic planning.

Yes, they did.

No they did not.

If you're unable to tell this, you probably don't need to be posting at all.

I am more than capable of posting, but as you did not provide sources, I'm not going to take your word for it.

[Costa Fierro]

Actually, to expand on my point above: it's even funnier how OEP's argument doesn't include vital points, such as the simplicity or complexity of the developed equipment produced by either the USSR or Nazi Germany (to the point where workshops in cities that were under siege could still churn out dozens of PPSh-41s or where factories in cities such as Stalingrad were still pumping out T-34s even as Nazi forces were rolling up to the factory doors, for instance, whereas Nazi small arms and most equipment had to be specifically produced in factories under stringent conditions thanks to the requirements of these more complex weapons systems). For comparison, the PPSh-41, which had 6 million units produced, only featured 87 parts total, almost all of which but the barrel itself could be created in any workshop with the most rudimentary of tools, whereas the MP-40 featured 110 parts, more of which required factory machinery to produce, and only had 1 million units created throughout the entirety of World War Two.

On the part about artillery: Nazi Germany only produced about 160,000 pieces of all types, including anti-tank and anti-air guns (which total to 110,000 pieces out of that total number, reducing the actual amount of dedicated artillery to just 50,000 pieces). Contrast this with Soviet production, which produced nearly five times that number of artillery, including AA and AT pieces. Similarly, contrast, for instance, machine gun production: the Germans produced about 700,000 pieces throughout the war, whereas the Soviets doubled that number. Mortars also have a hilarious contrast, with the Nazis not even being able to produced 100,000 pieces whereas the Soviets were able to pump their numbers up to around 400,000 total pieces.

At the end of the day, OEP's numbers are disingenuous because they deliberately ignore how absurdly out-gunned the Nazis were compared to the Soviets. The Soviets had more tanks, more small arms, more artillery, more planes (in the three combat categories of fighter planes, ground-attack planes, and bombers (in an addendum to this, the Soviets more than likely had air superiority across the Eastern Front as early as Operation Uranus, if this source and its two cited sources are to be believed)) and thus a much greater ability to commit to combat operations than the Nazis ever could. A hundred thousand trains mean jack-fucking-shit at the end of the day if your enemy has more troops, weapons, armored fighting vehicles, planes, and artillery than you do, can produce all those things more effectively and cheaply, resource-wise, than you can by making them as simple as possible, unlike you with your complex machinery and dozens of variants to weapons and vehicles, and can use them to retake over a thousand miles of lost territory and kick your ass all the way back to your own capital in just about three years.

I also like the fact that Wikipedia has multiple citations for its claims but these are all disproved by two archive links and one book.

[Torrocca]

Actually, to expand on my point above: it's even funnier how OEP's argument doesn't include vital points, such as the simplicity or complexity of the developed equipment produced by either the USSR or Nazi Germany (to the point where workshops in cities that were under siege could still churn out dozens of PPSh-41s or where factories in cities such as Stalingrad were still pumping out T-34s even as Nazi forces were rolling up to the factory doors, for instance, whereas Nazi small arms and most equipment had to be specifically produced in factories under stringent conditions thanks to the requirements of these more complex weapons systems). For comparison, the PPSh-41, which had 6 million units produced, only featured 87 parts total, almost all of which but the barrel itself could be created in any workshop with the most rudimentary of tools, whereas the MP-40 featured 110 parts, more of which required factory machinery to produce, and only had 1 million units created throughout the entirety of World War Two.

On the part about artillery: Nazi Germany only produced about 160,000 pieces of all types, including anti-tank and anti-air guns (which total to 110,000 pieces out of that total number, reducing the actual amount of dedicated artillery to just 50,000 pieces). Contrast this with Soviet production, which produced nearly five times that number of artillery, including AA and AT pieces. Similarly, contrast, for instance, machine gun production: the Germans produced about 700,000 pieces throughout the war, whereas the Soviets doubled that number. Mortars also have a hilarious contrast, with the Nazis not even being able to produced 100,000 pieces whereas the Soviets were able to pump their numbers up to around 400,000 total pieces.

At the end of the day, OEP's numbers are disingenuous because they deliberately ignore how absurdly out-gunned the Nazis were compared to the Soviets. The Soviets had more tanks, more small arms, more artillery, more planes (in the three combat categories of fighter planes, ground-attack planes, and bombers (in an addendum to this, the Soviets more than likely had air superiority across the Eastern Front as early as Operation Uranus, if this source and its two cited sources are to be believed)) and thus a much greater ability to commit to combat operations than the Nazis ever could. A hundred thousand trains mean jack-fucking-shit at the end of the day if your enemy has more troops, weapons, armored fighting vehicles, planes, and artillery than you do, can produce all those things more effectively and cheaply, resource-wise, than you can by making them as simple as possible, unlike you with your complex machinery and dozens of variants to weapons and vehicles, and can use them to retake over a thousand miles of lost territory and kick your ass all the way back to your own capital in just about three years.

I also like the fact that Wikipedia has multiple citations for its claims but these are all disproved by two archive links and one book.

Wikipedia is a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy designed to discredit the Aryan master race.

[Costa Fierro]

Wikipedia is a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy designed to discredit the Aryan master race.

Everything is a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy. Even the incompetency in the OKH.

Did you know Franz Halder was a Jew?

[Torrocca]

Wikipedia is a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy designed to discredit the Aryan master race.

Everything is a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy. Even the incompetency in the OKH.

Did you know Franz Halder was a Jew?

Hitler himself was a Jew who drove Nazi Germany and its noble cause to eradicate all the Jews directly to ruin.

[United Capitalist Federations]

Hey, I was just wondering what the NS community thought about how an Axis victory in WW2
My only rule for this discussion is that I want an at least good answer, not "HiTlEr DuMb. jUSt dONt iNvaDe rUsSiA iN WiNteR."
Otherwise, post anything you want, as I am interested in your answers.

Probably no situation where the Axis win, at least winning without being nearly destroyed. Hitler was, in fact, an idiot, and found a way to screw himself over in almost every situation.

[Memeosan]

Hey, I was just wondering what the NS community thought about how an Axis victory in WW2
My only rule for this discussion is that I want an at least good answer, not "HiTlEr DuMb. jUSt dONt iNvaDe rUsSiA iN WiNteR."
Otherwise, post anything you want, as I am interested in your answers.

Probably no situation where the Axis win, at least winning without being nearly destroyed. Hitler was, in fact, an idiot, and found a way to screw himself over in almost every situation.

Can you please elaborate more?

What kinds of situations?
How did Germany get into these situations?
The reasons behind these situations?

You get the idea.

[The Two Jerseys]

Everything is a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy. Even the incompetency in the OKH.

Did you know Franz Halder was a Jew?

Hitler himself was a Jew who drove Nazi Germany and its noble cause to eradicate all the Jews directly to ruin.

Dramatic Voiceover Guy: "From the creators of The Americans..."

[Orange-Transvaal]

Everything is a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy. Even the incompetency in the OKH.

Did you know Franz Halder was a Jew?

Hitler himself was a Jew who drove Nazi Germany and its noble cause to eradicate all the Jews directly to ruin.

*visible confusion*

[Torrocca]

Hitler himself was a Jew who drove Nazi Germany and its noble cause to eradicate all the Jews directly to ruin.

*visible confusion*

Don't worry about it, you did Nazi anything. :3

[Liriena]

I guess they could have maybe won if they hadn't decided to piss off the two countries with the biggest dick energy in the world at the time (Uncle Sam With The Hot Wheels and Papa Stalin's Magic Kingdom). But then you'd be talking about a completely different war altogether from the get-go so... I'm gonna stick with "they couldn't have won, because fascist regimes have manlet syndrome and will always do the dumbest and evilest thing".

[Castelia]

I've stated it before, and I'll state it again.

World War 2 was a no-win scenario even from the beginning. Heck, it was already a no-win scenario even before it began.

[Infected Mushroom]

Couldn't Japan have kept its gains if it just stuck to invading China?

[Castelia]

Couldn't Japan have kept its gains if it just stuck to invading China?

The war was unsustainable, I believe. They were winning victory after victory but their supplies of oil, which were already limited, were being depleted. Add to that the American embargo and Japan would have faced two choices:

1. Either stop the war in China (which they were VERY UNWILLING to do) or:

2. Obtain those resources elsewhere.

And we all know what happened next.

[Confederate States of German America]

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.

Obviously it failed, as June 22 of 1941 shows. The point, quite obviously, was that there was an opening for such which refutes the original notion that such was never possible.

[Confederate States of German America]

Funny how your lists for production numbers there exclude some very important pieces of equipment that win wars, such as small arms, artillery, planes, or even munitions. I bet we'd get a much nicer picture with those involved.

Okay, first, actually read the post before trying to insinuate things:

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.

Also, don't forget to leave out points because they are inconvenient:

I'm not even including Naval production, which further demonstrates the Industrial superiority of the Reich over the Soviets.

Planes data is easily found, and we do have munition production data for artillery:

1942:
Artillery and mortar shells: 825,000 metric tons / 635,000 metric tons

1943
Artillery and mortar shells: 1,410,000 / 850,000

1944
Artillery and mortar shells: 1,735,000 / 1,100,000

Germany/USSR, just for clarification. I will also say I did not include Mortar or AA shells, as I was getting more of the artillery aspect. As for small arms, in 1943 the Reich utilized 4% of its steel output, or 1,280,000 metric tons, for such while the Soviet Commissariat of Armament used 9.5% of Soviet steel output, or 760,000 tons. Thus, in both munitions and small arms, the Soviets were decisively outproduced.

[Confederate States of German America]

Actually, to expand on my point above: it's even funnier how OEP's argument doesn't include vital points, such as the simplicity or complexity of the developed equipment produced by either the USSR or Nazi Germany (to the point where workshops in cities that were under siege could still churn out dozens of PPSh-41s or where factories in cities such as Stalingrad were still pumping out T-34s even as Nazi forces were rolling up to the factory doors, for instance, whereas Nazi small arms and most equipment had to be specifically produced in factories under stringent conditions thanks to the requirements of these more complex weapons systems). For comparison, the PPSh-41, which had 6 million units produced, only featured 87 parts total, almost all of which but the barrel itself could be created in any workshop with the most rudimentary of tools, whereas the MP-40 featured 110 parts, more of which required factory machinery to produce, and only had 1 million units created throughout the entirety of World War Two.

Because it's a completely irrelevant to the point of which is Industrial superior and also runs into several errors when thinking along these lines.

1. Resiliency does not equal superiority - Whether the Stalingrad Tractor factor was still making tanks or not is pretty irrelevant to the question of who is overall producing more equipment in the equipment; yes, you can say that is a testament to the efficiency of the Soviet war economy but it does shed any fundamental light on the overall question. It is also utterly irrelevant as it creates a double standard. German factories in 1944, despite having lost access to most of their raw materials and the collapse of the transportation network under concentrated Allied bombardment, actually increased their output. The entire reason the USAAF turned to fire bombings in Japan was to get at cottage industries that had been dispersed, for another example. Are we seriously going to say this means that Japan was industrially superior to the United States?

2. Simplicity does not equal superiority - I think this should be self explanatory, as whether or not a MP-40 has fewer small parts than its Soviet counterpart is kinda irrelevant in so far as an argument in favor of Soviet industrial superiority. It's actually in argument in favor of the Germans, as more small parts means more production work and greater need for precision engineering. A very good example of this: an Me-109 has fewer parts than an F-15, which would you prefer to produce for your military?

On the part about artillery: Nazi Germany only produced about 160,000 pieces of all types, including anti-tank and anti-air guns (which total to 110,000 pieces out of that total number, reducing the actual amount of dedicated artillery to just 50,000 pieces). Contrast this with Soviet production, which produced nearly five times that number of artillery, including AA and AT pieces. Similarly, contrast, for instance, machine gun production: the Germans produced about 700,000 pieces throughout the war, whereas the Soviets doubled that number. Mortars also have a hilarious contrast, with the Nazis not even being able to produced 100,000 pieces whereas the Soviets were able to pump their numbers up to around 400,000 total pieces.

Do us all a favor a breakdown the artillery production by caliber, because you'll find the Soviets were largely producing small caliber weapons (which need far fewer resources) versus the Germans producing higher caliber. You see the same play out in tank production, where Soviet production is overwhelming light tanks completely incomparable to German models. You also imply that the Germans could not produce certain things; that's utterly false and any review of German production allotments will show this. Steel dedicated to specific purposes changed frequently on a yearly basis, as the Germans were able to increase or decrease into certain areas as needed.

At the end of the day, OEP's numbers are disingenuous because they deliberately ignore how absurdly out-gunned the Nazis were compared to the Soviets. The Soviets had more tanks, more small arms, more artillery, more planes (in the three combat categories of fighter planes, ground-attack planes, and bombers (in an addendum to this, the Soviets more than likely had air superiority across the Eastern Front as early as Operation Uranus, if this source and its two cited sources are to be believed)) and thus a much greater ability to commit to combat operations than the Nazis ever could. A hundred thousand trains mean jack-fucking-shit at the end of the day if your enemy has more troops, weapons, armored fighting vehicles, planes, and artillery than you do, can produce all those things more effectively and cheaply, resource-wise, than you can by making them as simple as possible, unlike you with your complex machinery and dozens of variants to weapons and vehicles, and can use them to retake over a thousand miles of lost territory and kick your ass all the way back to your own capital in just about three years.

Because the Third Reich was not outgunned by the Soviets according to raw production data at all until 1945. The Soviets were only able to outproduce the Reich in three categories: Tanks, Planes, Artillery and Armored Cars. They achieved this by completely giving on naval production, munitions production, small arms, trucks and cars, railway materials, and armored fighting vehicles. In other words, the Soviets were a one trick pony that was unable to meet the requirements of a modern mechanized forced with an actual logistics system fit for war, while the Germans were able to craft a well rounded force.

Finally, and this really shows who understands history and military history in particular, anyone who claims a 100,000 train cars and thousands of locomotives are irrelevant to having more tanks doesn't to talk on the subject because they don't understand how logistics work. How are those tanks going to get to the front and thereafter how are you going to keep them supplied? The trains. How are those soldiers getting to the front? The trains. Who is feeding them and keeping them supplied? Again, the trains. Anyone who discounts logistics is simply ignorant of military history.

[Confederate States of German America]

No they were not.

Yes they were, I've provided sources that show this. Now, in a debate, since you disagree with it, you're supposed to provide counter sources. Until you do so, you've lost this point.

I'm not going to, because it's not false. Virtually everyone else says the Germans were incapable of outstripping the Soviets. Except the Wehraboo.

Bandwagon fallacy.

Most of Germany's Axis allies very much lacked the industrial development and capacity to wage war. Germany was really the only fully industrualised nation in the European Axis, even Italy was largely agrarian with a limited industrial base from which a functional armed forces could develop. Hence why many German allies either used German equipment or licensed designs of weapons, combat vehicles, and aircraft. Germany was the only country essentially capable of waging war in the entire Axis coalition. The Italians sure couldn't, the only country they beat in the interwar period was Ethiopia and they failed to invade and conquer Greece, by all means a comparatively weak nation, twice.

Which is completely irrelevant to the point at hand.

Japan was also very industrialised but it lacked the resources in the home islands themselves and was reliant on imports, hence why it embarked on a major campaign to take resource-rich parts of Southeast Asia. It was somewhat successful but ultimately doomed to failure because Japanese forces were overextended and their lines of supply were incredibly vulnerable.

Fun fact: Japan had more machine tools than the USSR.

No they did not.

Then provide a citation, until then you've lost bud.

I am more than capable of posting, but as you did not provide sources, I'm not going to take your word for it.

Except I have multiple times while you have failed to do so once.

Since you wanted citations: Soviet Industrial Production 1940-1945 and Steel, Coal and the German War Economy.

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

[Confederate States of German America]

I also like the fact that Wikipedia has multiple citations for its claims but these are all disproved by two archive links and one book.

Because wikipedia can be edited by anyone anonymously, is not peer reviewed by experts in the field, and does not require proof to add anything, meaning anyone with an agenda can edit it. Books, meanwhile, come from people with established credentials who can have them peer reviewed for accuracy and archival data is a primary source. As I said earlier in the thread, please do try to argue with any academic over the validity of Wikipedia; they'll laugh in your face.

[The Underestimated Ones]

Axis can win through asb and aliens giving them advanced technologies