Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 15th, 2012, 02:43 AM   #11
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 6

No, the axis certainly had a chance of winning ww2. Just look at the industrial capicity rise after the defeat in stalingrad, hitler declared total war, and german industry output rose around 5 times. Just thinking about what they could've done if the germans, just like the british, had immidiately declared total war is horrendous
DreagenDrako is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 15th, 2012, 02:44 AM   #12
Suspended indefinitely
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,933

Originally Posted by DreagenDrako View Post
No, the axis certainly had a chance of winning ww2. Just look at the industrial capicity rise after the defeat in stalingrad, hitler declared total war, and german industry output rose around 5 times. Just thinking about what they could've done if the germans, just like the british, had immidiately declared total war is horrendous
Welcome to Historum, DD; nice first post.
sylla1 is offline  
Old March 15th, 2012, 02:56 AM   #13

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 23,004
Blog Entries: 19

Originally Posted by Salah View Post
Looking at the American Civil War, the outcome seems to have been inevitable from the start. The North had a very clear advantage in terms of manpower and its economic strength.

Would it be fair to say one side or the other had a similar clear advantage in World War II? I've read, for instance, that Italy's military was comparatively outdated at the start of the War.

I beg pardon in advance if this is a stupid question, but I have never seriously studied WWII until recently.
My opinion is that with a different general strategy the conflict could have been longer, but at the end the allied democracies would have won anyway.

IN a few words, Nazi Germany wanted too much, literally.

A point:

Regarding the Italian contribution, it's not exactly to say that our Army was outdated, it was also limited by external influences.

Hitler asked to Mussolini to order to SuperMarina [SuperNavy: it was the name of Italian Navy Head Quarters, no irony, please ] to send the fleet to conquer Malta which was a strategical knot of the allied operative chain in the perspective of the incoming conflict in Northern Africa.

Mussolini perhaps wanted to order the conquest of Malta [don't imagine the Knights to defend it like against the Ottomans, the Chapter of the Order was in Rome ...]

but, it was just the diplomatic power of the Order [and the Papacy] to suggest to the Duce not to attack Malta.

From this episode I get the impression that Italian dictatorship hoped [even when the conflict was already in progress] to find a diplomatic exit strategy.
AlpinLuke is online now  
Old March 15th, 2012, 03:04 AM   #14
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 6

Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Welcome to Historum, DD; nice first post.
Thank you, I've been lurking around for ages and now finally decided to post
DreagenDrako is offline  
Old March 15th, 2012, 05:15 AM   #15

caldrail's Avatar
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,990
Blog Entries: 15

What chance did the Axis powers have of winning WWII?
My own two cents on this one.

The Axis powers were basing their strategies at the beginning on first strike principles. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in order to give America a bloody nose and persuade them, with the loss of their carrier strength in the pacific, to stop getting in the way of japanese ambition. It was a gamble and they knew it.

Germany used bltizkrieg to devastating effect to begin with, combined with Hitlers penchant for taking political and military risks. Dictators sometimes exhibit a belief that they will get away with anything if they're daring enough (one reason why they get into power in the first place) and we see this with annexations in europe as Hitler became increasingly confident, and to a lesser extent the quasi-roman ambition of Italy elsewhere.

In both east and west a primary objective was control of resources to underpin regime advancement, both obtained from audacious miltary invasion designed to intimidate the potential enemies as much as succeeeding in their own right.

However, when the war began to turn to one of strategic attrition, the british emopire and american economic/industrial strength had a greater effect.

Therefore I would say that the Axis could have won WWII had they kept the war short and limited in scope. By losing the political war, the balance tipped away from them.
caldrail is offline  
Old March 15th, 2012, 05:53 AM   #16

WeisSaul's Avatar
Joined: Mar 2012
From: New Amsterdam
Posts: 2,836

If the axis had shifted its goals from establishing a new world order, to fighting a limited war that would allow more room in the international system for the axis powers and forcing some concessions to the axis powers, then they could have won a very short, limited war; provided that they don't get greedy. This is also assuming

Germany gets Alsace Lorraine, the Netherlands, all of Schleswig, Madagascar, Luxembourg, Belgian Congo, Rwanda-Burundi, and Flanders. Also the wast has to take all of the Jews Germany currently has to deal with. Wallonia is a German rump/satellite state. Poland is established as an independent Congress Poland-esque sized satellite of Germany.

Italy gets the Aozou strip, Tunisia, Nice, Savoy, Albania, Corsica, Malta, British and French Somaliland, Socotra, Lebanon, Cyprus, Greece, Tangiers, French Cameroons, an expansion of Libya's coastline into the 1914 area, greater interest in Suez, and a promise by the allies not to interfere with Italy's affairs regarding Spain.

A Pan-arab Baathist state is established is Syria, Iraq, and Kuwait, ruled by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

An independent Croatian State is established. A Bosnian Muslim state is established, and a Serb-Montenegro Yugoslav rump state is founded. Only Croatia has real sovereignty. The others are puppets.

Hungary gets Slovakia, Transylvania, and Magyar majority parts of Yugoslavia.

Bulgaria gets Greek Thrace and Yugoslav Macedonia.

Japan gets Manchukuo, Tientsin, Tsingtao, Port Arthur, Kwang-Chou-Wan, Hainan, French Indochina, French Polynesia, Thailand (puppet/vassal state that annexes portions of Indochina), Hainan, and New Caledonia. Japan gets a massive sphere of influence over China, and the west cannot interfere with Japan's affairs regarding an invasion of Siberia.

Germany begins establishing stronger relations with Argentina, and the west isn't allowed to interfere in the relationship. A Fascist Juan Peron Argentina would be on the way. One that has a vested interest in taking all of Chile from Aisen southwards, southern portions of Bolivia, and Uruguay. It wants to be South America's hegemonic power, and an empowered Germany can help it reach that status.
The Dutch colonial Empire is partitioned between Britain, France, Wallonia (very little), Japan (very little), the US, Portugal, and some independent states would be established.
WeisSaul is offline  
Old March 15th, 2012, 06:13 AM   #17
Suspended indefinitely
Member of the Year
Joined: Sep 2011
From: ------------
Posts: 24,135
Blog Entries: 9

Axis powers had no chance as soon as America had the Atomic bomb. If you omit this factor from the equation, I think it is fair to say that yes, the Axis powers had a fair chance indeed.
Brisieis is offline  
Old March 15th, 2012, 06:43 AM   #18

bil73's Avatar
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 558

the civil war wasnt inevitable a victory at antitiem (can you say "lost orders") or Gettysburg (highly possible) and England and/or France might have joined the southern side then all bets are off.
Germany came real close to defeating the soviet union but for some bad decisions from Hitler they might have pulled it off
I honestly dont think Japan ever stood a chance of outright winning they were hoping for a quick ceasefire or treaty after the first few victories
bil73 is offline  
Old March 15th, 2012, 01:16 PM   #19
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,261

Germany and Japan both way overreached themselves. Italy too, which became sort of a joke, but it isn't that easy to just conquer a bunch of countries.

Yeh, Germany could have consolidated its gains in 1938 and probably in 1940 and didn't have to crash and burn.

The second map is a little misleading, as it shows Brazil and some Axis occupied area as allies. However, if you look at how much of the map is US, USSR, British Empire, and China, it is easy to understand why the Axis lost.

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.
betgo is offline  
Old March 15th, 2012, 05:41 PM   #20

Ceasar's Avatar
Joined: Dec 2011
From: California
Posts: 293

Britain didn't have the industry or manpower to fight Germany in a land war.
The United States would (mostly for political reasons) have been incapable of participating in a full blown land war as well.
Russian industry was too lacking at the start of the war, but they essentially destroyed most of the German army.
France... well, France...
Ceasar is offline  

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

axis, chance, powers, winning, wwii

Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Did the British have much a chance of winning the American War for Independence? Salah American History 69 February 15th, 2012 06:57 PM
Blockade of Axis powers-haw effective it was? Edward War and Military History 0 April 3rd, 2011 11:52 PM
T-34, war winning tank SPERRO War and Military History 45 March 19th, 2011 05:40 PM
Winning War with with power tedkaw War and Military History 12 November 4th, 2006 10:38 PM
World War II Axis Powers celtman General History 3 August 18th, 2006 07:01 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.