How could the Axis Powers win WW2?

[Atheris]

The Axis may have been able to win if Hitler had listened to his generals. Erich von Manstein wrote a lengthy book on the subject. But in any case, it's obviously for the best that Hitler did not listen to them and that the Axis lost the war.

Actually, in a majority of cases, Hitler was a better military commander than a good portion of his generals.

Too lazy (and sick) to pull it up now, but it shouldn't be that hard to find.

[Costa Fierro]

The Axis may have been able to win if Hitler had listened to his generals. Erich von Manstein wrote a lengthy book on the subject. But in any case, it's obviously for the best that Hitler did not listen to them and that the Axis lost the war.

Because anything written by a Wehrmacht general after the war was always going to be impartial.

[Bun Queen]

Axis might've won if Germany didn't kill almost half its Jewish population. Imagine a timeline where good old Albert worked with Germans scientist.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Axis might've won if Germany didn't kill almost half its Jewish population. Imagine a timeline where good old Albert worked with Germans scientist.

It wouldn't have mattered. Germany had no access to raw materials for atomic weapons.

[Confederate States of German America]

Axis might've won if Germany didn't kill almost half its Jewish population. Imagine a timeline where good old Albert worked with Germans scientist.

It wouldn't have mattered. Germany had no access to raw materials for atomic weapons.

Einstein's role in the atomic project was honestly not that important, nor even really all that major. His biggest role was his letter to FDR but even that is somewhat reduced by the knowledge it took Mark Oliphant's 1941 trip to get the Americans to actually focus on a bomb and to actually begin making a serious effort of it overall.

Werner von Heisenberg, meanwhile, was considered the foremost expert on nuclear matters prior to the outbreak of the conflict and such was his reputation that the Allies devised plans to kidnap in an effort to sabotage the German project. As it was anyway, up until about 1941 the Germans were keeping pace with the Allies in progress until two major errors occurred:

- Heisenberg dismissed graphite as a moderator, and a pretty poorly conducted follow on test by other scientists supported this assertion. This led to the poor strategic decision of using Heavy Water which, while a better moderator than graphite, was outrageously expensive and pretty much solely dependent on facilities in Norway that were sabotaged in 1943.
- They failed to come up with the proper critical mass theory, consistently overestimating how much uranium was needed.

Both of these mistakes are easily understandable and could've went the other way, as the exact same issues plagued the American project into 1941.

[Novus America]

Axis might've won if Germany didn't kill almost half its Jewish population. Imagine a timeline where good old Albert worked with Germans scientist.

They still lose if the fight the US.
Sure killing and exiling their best scientists certainly did not help, but it alone was not the cause of their defeat.

Besides if the are nice to the Jews they are not Nazis.
Being Nazis made hating Jews unavoidable.

[Mel Taruhm]

idk but these console commands might help:

/ban_player 'trotskysmells'
/ban_player 'xXFreedomLandXx'
/ban_player 'DeGaulleDeMan'
/remove_object 'human_decency'
/remove_object 'winter'
/remove_object 'empathy'
/add_object 'gun' x1000000
/disable_event 'italian switcheroo'

[Novus America]

It wouldn't have mattered. Germany had no access to raw materials for atomic weapons.

Einstein's role in the atomic project was honestly not that important, nor even really all that major. His biggest role was his letter to FDR but even that is somewhat reduced by the knowledge it took Mark Oliphant's 1941 trip to get the Americans to actually focus on a bomb and to actually begin making a serious effort of it overall.

Werner von Heisenberg, meanwhile, was considered the foremost expert on nuclear matters prior to the outbreak of the conflict and such was his reputation that the Allies devised plans to kidnap in an effort to sabotage the German project. As it was anyway, up until about 1941 the Germans were keeping pace with the Allies in progress until two major errors occurred:

- Heisenberg dismissed graphite as a moderator, and a pretty poorly conducted follow on test by other scientists supported this assertion. This led to the poor strategic decision of using Heavy Water which, while a better moderator than graphite, was outrageously expensive and pretty much solely dependent on facilities in Norway that were sabotaged in 1943.
- They failed to come up with the proper critical mass theory, consistently overestimating how much uranium was needed.

Both of these mistakes are easily understandable and could've went the other way, as the exact same issues plagued the American project into 1941.

The Germans had much more limited access to uranium. Also they never invested enough in the project, and they were too vulnerable to bombing if they did.

The US had to build literally entire cities to create the bombs. Something the Germans never even came close to even attempting.

Also the US relied less on one person, trying many different methods.
The US figured out the best methods by also trying most of the others.

The Germans did not try very hard. They invested relatively little in their program.
Certainly did not invest nearly enough.

[Confederate States of German America]

The Germans had much more limited access to uranium. Also they never invested enough in the project, and they were too vulnerable to bombing if they did.

The US had to build literally entire cities to create the bombs. Something the Germans never even came close to even attempting.

Also the US relied less on one person, trying many different methods.
The US figured out the best methods by also trying most of the others.

The Germans did not try very hard. They invested relatively little in their program.
Certainly did not invest nearly enough.

The Germans had about equal access to uranium, thanks to the Pre-War German lead in such and captured stocks in Western Europe; Bohemia and East Germany also had extensive deposits the Soviets used Post-War. As for the actual construction and facilities, a lot of that boiled down to critical mass mistake in that they consistently overestimated how much uranium would be needed, which resulted in them not undertaking such an effort because they thought it would be much more resource and cost intensive then it actually would. Nor was the German project focused on one individual or one method, in fact one of the chief issues was how divided their project was in that it was more projects than a singular project.

As it were, had Heisenberg or others come up with the correct critical mass theory in 1939 as was certainly possible, the Germans would've likely been producing bombs by 1944.

[Costa Fierro]

The Germans did not try very hard. They invested relatively little in their program.

If memory serves me correctly, this was because OKW figured the money and time would be better invested in conventional weapons.

[Confederate States of German America]

Another one I should mention: Hitler makes the decision to abandon North Africa as a result of Torch, instead of doubling down and shifting the resources for duty in Russia.

[Novus America]

The Germans did not try very hard. They invested relatively little in their program.

If memory serves me correctly, this was because OKW figured the money and time would be better invested in conventional weapons.

This is true. It did however ensure they were not getting atomic weapons first.
(We should go back to using Atomic instead of nuclear. Sounds cooler )

[Novus America]

Another one I should mention: Hitler makes the decision to abandon North Africa as a result of Torch, instead of doubling down and shifting the resources for duty in Russia.

Definitely agree that would have helped. Problem is Italy started shit they should not have.
The Greece thing especially.

Had Italy done like Spain (stay officially neutral but still send forces to fight the Soviets) Germany would have been in a much better situation.
Still the Germans had to keep the US out as well or they still are screwed in the long run.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Barbarossa would have gone a hundred times better if the Italians didn't keep ruining everything.

Honestly why the fuck would you even want Italians on your team lol, they haven't done anything remarkable militarily since Rome.

[Seangoli]

Barbarossa would have gone a hundred times better if the Italians didn't keep ruining everything.

Honestly why the fuck would you even want Italians on your team lol, they haven't done anything remarkable militarily since Rome.

What are you talking about? It's not like the Italians developed tiny tanks specifically to excel at combat i the Alps to the North. Only to ally with on if their neighbors through the Alps, share part with a neighbor co quered by their ally, and stare at a Neutral power along the rest, while then getting into engagements that completely obsoleted said tanks in North Africa.

Italians were brilliant tacticians, you see.

[Confederate States of German America]

Barbarossa would have gone a hundred times better if the Italians didn't keep ruining everything.

Honestly why the fuck would you even want Italians on your team lol, they haven't done anything remarkable militarily since Rome.

Italian strategic blunders are many, but I (and many commanders on both sides as well) rate them as great individual soldiers. They did a fanatical defense of Tunisia in early 1943 and the previous fall on the Russian steppe fought till the Soviets were literally using their tanks to physically destroy their positions because they wouldn't stop fighting. The survivors burned their colors as a fuck you to the Reds and then fought through the Soviet encirclement to safety. The last major successful Axis counter-attack in Europe was also by RSI troops in December of 1944, and they were rated as some of the best tank destroyers in any army.

As for the strategic blunders, the Balkans campaign stands out the most in my mind. The Yugoslav and Greek campaigns used up a lot of stockpiled logistics that delayed the onset of the attack from June 10th (the earliest possible point it could be launched due to extensive flooding) to June 21st. Even then, Army Group South for the first few days didn't demonstrate a lot of impressive gains like AGN or AGC did. Now, two weeks might not sound like a lot but I point you to the Battle of Borodino in October; the Soviet 32nd Rifle Division was able to beat 2nd SS to that strategic point, erect defenses, and then lasted long enough for more Soviet forces to get into position. Had 2nd SS been just one day faster, 32nd Rifle would've been caught in the open and destroyed. Nothing else was in the way then to stop the German thrust and now they would be on an all weather road leading straight to Moscow. More importantly, however, is that 11th Army was detached from Army Group South for occupation duties in the Balkans. This meant AGS couldn't conduct wide encirclement operations, forcing them into blunt movements forward and ultimately necessitated Army Group Center pausing in August and then diverting to Kiev to assist them.

[Semparia]

All i get from this is that if the nazis werent nazis they would have won. which is stupid, because there probably wouldn't have been a big ww2 as we know it without the nazis. as for why people are saying germany would've been better without italy, that makes about the big zero sense, considering that A. They needed all the damn help they could get, Germany had massive manpower and having several hundred italians guarding your flank instead of just Hanz and Franz armed with a single K98 is probably better. Also Italy gave the ability to apply pressure in the Mediterranean a hell of a lot more easily, and Italy also had territory in Africa, giving germany a place to start there, because it probably would've sucked giant balls to make an amphibious landing in Africa. As for the atomic program, there was no real race. The german atomic program was laughable. When Albert Speer took over, in 45, he canceled it talking about how they didn't have the researchers, and what researchers they did have were unmotivated as hell, it was just a waste of resources. Plus, even if they had researched it in time, its not like they could drop it on anything without any bombers or air superiority to do so. and, to top it off, many high ranking germans saw atomic science as jewish science, and would probably never dedicate any more resources than it got anyways, though it would probably never have enough resources to fully complete research in time. oh also, the whole "hitler was bad should've listened to generals" is bippity boppity wrong. Many times early in the way he made correct calls overiding his generals, and many times he went with his generals despite his own misgivings and it went wrong, its only late in the war when hes absolutely lost it that he starts making bad decisions, and without hitler overriding his generals, its probably reasonable to bet that germany could've lost the war sooner. the only real way for germany to have won the war is for thousands of tiny individual bits, and hundreds of major bits, to go perfectly, and i mean perfectly. and thats just absurd.

[Neanderthaland]

All i get from this is that if the nazis werent nazis they would have won. which is stupid, because there probably wouldn't have been a big ww2 as we know it without the nazis. as for why people are saying germany would've been better without italy, that makes about the big zero sense, considering that A. They needed all the damn help they could get, Germany had massive manpower and having several hundred italians guarding your flank instead of just Hanz and Franz armed with a single K98 is probably better. Also Italy gave the ability to apply pressure in the Mediterranean a hell of a lot more easily, and Italy also had territory in Africa, giving germany a place to start there, because it probably would've sucked giant balls to make an amphibious landing in Africa. As for the atomic program, there was no real race. The german atomic program was laughable. When Alber Speer took over, in 45, he canceled it talking about how they didn't have the researchers, and what researchers they did have were unmotivated as hell, it was just a waste of resources. Plus, even if they had researched it in time, its not like they could drop it on anything without any bombers or air superiority to do so. and, to top it off, many high ranking germans saw atomic science as jewish science, and would probably never dedicate any more resources than it got anyways, though it would probably never have enough resources to fully complete research in time. oh also, the whole "hitler was bad should've listened to generals" is bippity boppity wrong. Many times early in the way he made correct calls overiding his generals, and many times he went with his generals despite his own misgivings and it went wrong, its only late in the war when hes absolutely lost it that he starts making bad decisions, and without hitler overriding his generals, its probably reasonable to bet that germany could've lost the war sooner. the only real way for germany to have won the war is for thousands of tiny individual bits, and hundreds of major bits, to go perfectly, and i mean perfectly. and thats just absurd.

Don't disturb the dead.

[Semparia]

All i get from this is that if the nazis werent nazis they would have won. which is stupid, because there probably wouldn't have been a big ww2 as we know it without the nazis. as for why people are saying germany would've been better without italy, that makes about the big zero sense, considering that A. They needed all the damn help they could get, Germany had massive manpower and having several hundred italians guarding your flank instead of just Hanz and Franz armed with a single K98 is probably better. Also Italy gave the ability to apply pressure in the Mediterranean a hell of a lot more easily, and Italy also had territory in Africa, giving germany a place to start there, because it probably would've sucked giant balls to make an amphibious landing in Africa. As for the atomic program, there was no real race. The german atomic program was laughable. When Alber Speer took over, in 45, he canceled it talking about how they didn't have the researchers, and what researchers they did have were unmotivated as hell, it was just a waste of resources. Plus, even if they had researched it in time, its not like they could drop it on anything without any bombers or air superiority to do so. and, to top it off, many high ranking germans saw atomic science as jewish science, and would probably never dedicate any more resources than it got anyways, though it would probably never have enough resources to fully complete research in time. oh also, the whole "hitler was bad should've listened to generals" is bippity boppity wrong. Many times early in the way he made correct calls overiding his generals, and many times he went with his generals despite his own misgivings and it went wrong, its only late in the war when hes absolutely lost it that he starts making bad decisions, and without hitler overriding his generals, its probably reasonable to bet that germany could've lost the war sooner. the only real way for germany to have won the war is for thousands of tiny individual bits, and hundreds of major bits, to go perfectly, and i mean perfectly. and thats just absurd.

Don't disturb the dead.

but im a grave robber who has nothing better to do in the middle of the night

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

By not having Italy on your side & not invading Russia and fighting Britain & France at the same time.

[Old Tyrannia]

Gravedigging is against the rules. Don't do it.