What could won WW2 for the AXIS?

[Drewtate]

For me I believe the elimination of the British Empire early in the war would have done that. Whether it be the destruction of the British Army at Dunkirk in 1940, the destruction of the RAF in 1940, the closing of the gap of Gibraltar north & south with help from fascist Spain and seizure of Malta and Gibraltar in 1940 thus securing German supply lines to North Africa.

A big one is better coordination between AXIS powers to eliminate the British Empire, for instance instead of the Attack on Pearl Harbour in December 7th 1941 the Imperial Japanese Navy with the same fleet that attacked Pearl Harbour could have sailed up the Red Sea and attacked British forces and landed Japanese troops to seize the suez canal while the Italian and German forces attacked from the west. The British would be quickly overwhelmed and the Royal Navy would be forced out of the Mediterranean and cut off from it colonies in Asia, Australia and New Zealand which they could seize. Between the Japanese fleet, German fleet, Italian fleet and Vichy French fleet the Royal Navy would meet its match in terms of numbers and the sea lanes for the AXIS which the Royal Navy was blockading all through WW2 would be open giving AXIS power the resources they lacked and could also trade freely between Japan and Germany sharing technology and the resources each power needed.

https://youtu.be/bVlKXAHOkuM?si=Gg3iGDB9QGMAhmfu

Updates

1 y

One of the biggest mistake between THE AXIS powers Is that they didn't coordinate in the early stages of ww2 to take the British empire off the board. Instead they fought their own wars divided.

[ImHere22]

Why? Why are you having this discussion? You wanted the Axis powers to win? Germany was not trying to share the world, y'all know that right? He needed additional resources right from the get-go, so instead of invading Italy, he used their greed for his gain, and persuaded them to join his side. He convinced Mussolini to attack 'some nation that you will easily invade, to show the world you are not to be messed with' (paraphrasing, obviously). Mussolini, unfortunately for him, chose Ethiopia, the people of which, put up a more serious fight than he was prepared for. Hence the reason Italy was not as strong as one would have liked when going to war with the entire western hemisphere, with the exception of Spain.

So the only thing on that side of the conflict would be for them Nazi thugs to choose a better side-kick and get a much better understanding for how much the world outside of Europe really, really, really hated all the European powers just colonizing up the planet.

If the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor, the U. S. would not have had an excuse to get involved when it did. The U. S. absolutely would have joined the war at some point, but not in 1941, possibly not even 1942, if Japan and Germany played their strategy correctly. This is also my opinion of why the courtship of Mexico to side with Germany and declare war on the U. S. failed so spectacularly. Removing the Zimmerman Letter from the equation (bro, we're gonna find out, c'mon man, we tapped y'all's lines and we have decoders), convincing any nation to declare open war on the U. S. would require that nation to have a large amount of resources at their fingertips. Mexico's one advantage in the game at that moment in time was location. Other than that, even though the U. S. had not built up it's production capability to the level seen in '44-45, it still had one of the largest concentrations of factories and agriculture outside Russia / Crimea. So if H wanted to get another nation to distract the U. S., he should have had emissaries working just a bit harder at building relations with nations in South America that could easily mobilize and create a logistical nightmare by having a third theater in Central / South America. If the Panama Canal were attacked, with assailants declaring war on the U. S., it would've taken the heat off the European theater. If the Axis' had taken Stalin and the resolve of Russia more seriously, then they might have been able to convince him to side with them instead of with the Allies. But, H dog got too greedy, and attacked when he really didn't need to. Of course that set off Stalin, who, let's be honest, was only waiting to see who was gonna piss him off first. And to war he happily went- happy because Russia had the most substantial army the world had seen, resources that were located far beyond the range of enemy planes, numerous factories, and a vast rail network, plus they were used to winter, like real cold winter, and would easily outlast any army that dared come into Russia- very, very difficult to fight Russia and win on their own ground.

Japan though, was a tough nation, and taking the fight to the U. S. from across the Pacific and not letting any inch of land or sea be won at all with ease made them, I think, a more difficult enemy than anyone outside Japan would have believed. Lesson here: don't underestimate that which you do not understand. If the U. S. had paid better attention to Japan, had really improved it's relations with it's Pacific Rim neighbors, then possibly the entire Pacific Theater could have been avoided. The key in this part was to avoid involving the U. S. at all. The Western Hemisphere is so vast and open, that war was difficult in the best of times. Japanese Navy did a masterful job at keeping on par with the U. S. and Allied fleet. But because they were pretty much on their own out there, I think if Japan had been able to possibly recruit nations located in Southeast Asia for support, they may have been able to reinforce their holdings if/when the U. S. may/may not have joined the war. One thing also would be not formally side with Germany, but instead, to 'conveniently also' begin taking over nations and areas, aka start a 'quiet' war in the Pacific as Germany/Italy fought against the Allies. That would have allowed Japan more time to build up and strengthen it's arms of of influence, thereby enabling it to outlast any potential future advances by an Allied force.

[Drewtate]

Spain was informally in the AXIS. Musselini wasn't convinced, he wanted to rebuild the old Roman Empire but the problems were with his blackshirts which were the same as the brownshirts SA, Hitler pit the SA into the wermarct rather the opposite of giving them leadership roles. The Italian army was very much like the French army, it had all the right equipment and army but couldn't fight. The nazis had to save the Italians in yugoslavia and North Africa. The debacle of the Italian airforce in the battle of Britain should not be overlooked.
Japan's reason for war was the same as Germany's, same Italy for that matter. Each dreamed of being a major empire but lacked the resources and territory necessary for that, oil being a big problem for each. The Japanese thanks to US oil embargoes while engaged in war with China which was being supported by America had six months of oil. The capture of some of the oil rich territory of the European colonies would solve this, in ww2 they couldn't use the oil or resources of the colonies they captured because royal navy and us navy submarines sank their supply ships.

[RavVid]

Recently saw some figures that German GDP was half that of both the UK and the US so about 1 fifth of them combined. So in an industrial war Germany was at a long term disadvantage. Hitler declaring war on the US after the US declared war on Japan for Pearl Harbor was perhaps a big mistake. I don't think you could take it as a given that the US would have done so.

I think your comments on the Vichy French fleet is why the RN shelled it in harbor at Mers-el-Kebir. It is odd Germany didn't seek to take it over at the earliest but that could have provoked the fleet to go over to the UK or to steam to the US. The French admiral was quite prickly with gallic pride so it probably rode on what he would have thought was the most 'insufferable'. The French fleet at Alexandria just surrendered the firing pins after a bit of a chat with the British because there was a family connection between the admirals there :)

The RN actually did withdraw from Ceylon and the Indian ocean to Africa and there was some naval actions in which the RN came off worse. India's role in both WW1 and 2 is almost unrecognized but they contributed more than a million troops in each. Had Japan subverted India the General Slim's campaign in Burma would have been a non-starter. Changing the focus from Pearl to Ceylon could have driven better results.

Gibraltar was pretty core I'd also agree had Spain got involved. At Dunkirk the British army lost all of it's equipment and a lot of planes so it was destroyed effectively. I'm not so convinced the Battle of Britain was so pivotal.

[ChefPapiChulo]

A peace deal which Hitler basically begged the British for. There was no way the UK would ever allow the Nazis to take Europe like that cause it could spell disaster in the long road.

the only chance was if the Luftwaffe destroyed the RAF in their bombing campaign on London in order to prep a land invasion. Cause there’s no way the Germans would have been able to land successfully without air control. Instead their bombing campaign was a failure and they lost great pilots. They also invaded Greece because Mussolini was retarded and this pushed the invasion of the Soviets into a long winter. They also sieged instead of taking it. After that it was a lost cause and the Germans were beginning to lose hope.

Stalin also did a great job of moving factories into the east and industrialized the nation in several 5 year plans and signed a non aggression pact with the Japanese.

The warmongering German generals got their delusional total war that they wanted and had no chance of winning. They were doomed by their own technocracy arrogance.

And it’s crazy how wrong you were about Iran by the way. How many times have you said war won’t happen and the US is closer to it everyday?

[Drewtate]

The leadership in Britain was divided in the summer of 1940. They'd been defeated badly in norway and France and their army though still technically in intact had lost all most of its weapons. There was talk of peace with Germany.

The failure to follow up the destruction of the BEF at Dunkirk followed by the failure to destroy the RAF in the battle of Britain meant no invasion of Britain could take place. There was a theory at the time that bombing cities would break a civilian population this proved false.
The Italians proved to be all bark no bite in WW2.
Stalin executed 90% of the red army's officers on his purdge and his blunders in the early War went a long way in the Nazis early successes. If not for the Nazi war machine running out of resources and the Soviets being ressupplied by the US and British they would have lost.
I never said war with Iran won't happen. The US government has been pushing for war with Iran since 2003. Iran I believe has the largest oil reserves in the world. All the those in the US government need is a reason to invade, even a manufacturered one like the WMDs in Iraq or a gulf of tonkin incident that got us into Vietnam, or an incident like 911 that was orchestrated by Saudis, Egyptians, UAE and Lebanon yet somehow we ended up in Afghanistan fighting the taliban for 20 years.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Oh how you change your tune.

Also saying things like “if the west didn’t help the Soviets they would have lost” is the biggest cop out. Because the west literally built paranoia into the both Soviets and the Germans lmao. Why wouldn’t they send the Germans supplies? Please don’t ever say anything like that ever again.

It’s funny how Germany defeated the British on the mainland, but wanted peace. Which they were never going to get. If Germany had control of Vichy France, the UK would have never been safe. No matter how much Hitler promised they would never invade, that would be a complete lie. The world would have fallen under a dark shadow that it would have never recovered from if they were allowed to dominate Europe.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Why wouldn’t they send the Soviets supplies*

[Drewtate]

Soviet generals like Zuchov and kruschev have admitted that without US aid the Germans would have won, they would know wouldn't they. If you look at what was given to the Soviet Union the British gave them 5000 tanks and we gave them 7000. In 1941 the Soviets only had about 3000 t34 tanks altogether. Then when you get into all the trucks, radar, radios, planes, trains, food, boots, bullets, bombs, even factories shipped over as well as account for the ships needed to ship this stuff yo them and their escorts.
The two rival socialist parties the nazis and communists had a built in rivalry that had nothing to do with the west but were able to set aside their differences and cooperate over invading Poland as both invaded Poland in 1939. The Soviet Union also invaded Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland. This is why the US, Britain and France did not supply Germany or the Soviet Union after 1939. They did however supply Finland and helped them defeat the Soviet invasion. After operation barbarossa 1941 the British and US stopped supplying Finland and started supplying Russia.

[Drewtate]

The Germans in 1940 needed peace with Britain because firstly they needed access to global trade for resources they needed, the British controlled the sea with the largest navy in the world. The threat of Britain tied down a lot of the German military (250,000 in norway alone through the whole war). The British had been beaten in 1940 but were a major industrial powerhouse with a stronger industry than Germany and the riches of a whole global empire behind them along with supplies from America they would soon recover. The volunteer BEF like in WW1 was small but in 1940 would be able to grow into a sizeable conscript army of at least 3 million. Then you have the sheer manpower of the Empire such as the Canadians, Australians and new Zealanders who fought so well in ww1 and then you have all those African troops of at least 1 million and from India the largest volunteer forelegs in history at 2.5 million. Then you had the treat of the RAF bombing German industry.
The only time the Germans could have invaded Britain was in 1940 when there was basically no army in Britain and any forces they had were deployed in its colonies at the time. The nazis would have been too busy consolidating it's territory in the Russia and its newly acquired European colonies in Africa and the Middle east. Britain itself in a darker reality may have fallen under its own fascist party.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Bro we've had this conversation before. You asked, what could have won ww2 for the axis? I don't think saying that the Germans would have won if the Soviets weren't supplied is a possible outcome because that's not what happened. Maybe if you said something like, if the Germans were able to stop the supplies going to the Soviets as a possibility, that would make that argument relevant.

Yes they needed access to global trade, which is why they invaded the Soviets, to become self sufficient. They got iron mines from Sweden, but they were lacking oil. And the Soviets destroyed their oil fields as they retreated (lol).

And yes, allowing the UK to recover was a huge blunder. The reason why they wanted peace was because they knew they needed air superiority to invade Britain, which they failed. And as I mentioned before, their bombing raids were too spread out. They should have targeted their production capabilities.

Germans just had no fucking chance from the start. It was a war of delusion.

[Drewtate]

I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so.
Nikkita Krushev Soviet Premier and WW2 Soviet General.

[Drewtate]

Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov
"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."

[ChefPapiChulo]

Which is fine. You're allowed to have that opinion and it could be a valid one. But it doesn't have a place in this discussion unless you discuss how the Germans could have stopped the supplies from coming in.

[Drewtate]

They could have knocked Britain out if the war and not declared War on America. They needed to be able to concentrate all forces on the Soviet Union. They need to aquire more resources. How many tanks can be built for one u-boat, how many can be fueled.

[ChefPapiChulo]

No they couldn't have. Thats the whole reason they invaded the Soviets because they couldn't defeat the British and their navy.

[Drewtate]

Even if France and Britain had stayed out of ww2 in 1939 and despite the Hitler & Stalin getting into bed with each other to divide up eastern Europe between them Hitler was always going in invade the Soviet union, it was in Mein Kampf in 1925 as were the reasons as to why. The reasoning was pretty sound from a Nazi POV.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Bro that is so half-baked. I never said they wouldn't invade the Soviets. You have such a shallow understanding of the war.

[Ferrin]

Certain things (geography, demographics, economy, technology, etc.) cannot be changed easily, so let's focus on decisions.

Germany could have focused on consolidating Europe instead of opening a two front war (Britain plus Soviet Union). It could have focused more decisively on capturing Moscow and forced a truce with the Soviets, instead of chasing after so many objectives in the eastern front and losing their early momentum. Germany could have chosen not to formally ally with Japan, so that the U. S. would not enter the European war directly. The Japanese, however, preferred that Germany draw the Soviets' attention (Soviets did not war against Japan until very late in WWII). Had Germany not pursued the development of atom bombs, the U. S. might have decided not to build its own, which later got Japan into trouble.

Japan's invasion of China was not progressing quickly enough for it to reach places with strategic resources. Had the Chinese decided to surrender, instead of dragging on a costly defensive war from a disadvantageous position, Japan might not have needed to militarily attack American and British possessions in the western Pacific and drawing them into direct conflict. Had the U. S. decided not to develop its own atom bomb (see above), and had the Japanese destroyed all U. S. aircraft carriers, it might be able to delay the United States long enough to consolidate its gains and make the Americans think saving Asia was becoming a lost cause (they might still demand reparations and other concessions however).

[Drewtate]

A well thought out comment.
Though I do think the Germans should have concentrated on the southern parts of Russia where the oil was.
If the Japanese had only taken the European colonies instead of attacking the us they would have gained the strategic resources they needed but also would have been able to exploit them. The US Navy submarine fleet very successfully blockaded Japanese maritime commerce.
I think the big thing with the US was that they needed justification to go to war and the public was dead against war in Europe or asia, unlike now of course where the us military is fighting wars nobody has a clue about

[Oliverlogan263]

Man, you really thought this through. Taking out Britain early does seem like it could've tipped the scales for sure. A lot had to go just right for the Allies.

I think coordinating better between the Axis powers is key, like you said. If Japan helps Germany hit the Suez while they move north from Africa, Britain woulda been screwed fast. Cut off from Asia and the Med, no way they hold on.

And man, teaming up those fleets? Game over for the Royal Navy tryna bottle them up. Axis would control the seas and trade lanes. Way more resources flowing between Germany, Japan, Italy. They'd be an unstoppable force with that kind of material and tech sharing.

Prolly shoulda spent less time bickering and more time strategic planning, but what's done is done I guess. Still, you gotta admire how close they came even with flawed execution. A couple breaks go their way and the world could've looked real different. Good analysis man, given me stuff to think on!

[ChefPapiChulo]

They didn’t get close lol. They just took everyone out with them.

[Oliverlogan263]

@ChefPapiChulo Aw man, yeah I bet those plans I came up with wouldn't have actually worked out the way I described! War is way more complicated than it looks on paper. The Axis powers definitely had some issues coordinating their efforts for real.

And you're right, even if they did manage to cut off the UK early on somehow, there's no guarantee the US wouldn't have still gotten involved later anyway to stop the Axis from taking over everything. Those dudes were on a roll but probably biting off more than they could chew by the end.

I was just having fun speculating, but looking back all their flaws are pretty obvious. They all wanted to be in charge but couldn't really work as a true team I guess. And the Allies had way more resources to draw from overall.

Thanks for keeping it real - I tend to get lost in hypotheticals sometimes without thinking through all the weaknesses. At the end of the day those Axis guys were outnumbered and outgunned no matter how they sliced it up. They may have done some damage along the way but never had a legit shot at total victory when you think about it.

[ChefPapiChulo]

I mean, it's the consensus. I only know what my history books tell me. Maybe there was a way for them to have a won that isn't written in them.

[Drewtate]

@ChefPapiChulo not the consensus of Soviet generals though that commanded in ww2 or Stalin

[ChefPapiChulo]

wdym?

[Zestyassmf1997]

Easiest answer: just be happy with the concessions you have pre-1939 and don’t start the war at all.

Hard answer: they have to do basically everything perfectly at the start. This means destroying the British Expeditionary Force to the last man at Dunkirk. Italy not screwing up in Greece. Italy not losing its fleet due to carelessness. Don’t divert troops south during operation Barbarossa. Kiev isn’t that important. There was some bad luck involved on their end. Like our carriers not being present at Pearl Harbor. I think Operation Typhoon was really the Axis’ point of no return. After that, their odds of victory went from 1% to a flat 0.

[Drewtate]

Pre 1939 the German economy was going broke. The nazis had this policy of Germany being self succient in case of future war where the likes of Britain and France could blockade them from global trade like was done in ww1. Synthetic oil from coal mines could only produce so much, its iron ore came from Sweden. They had kicked all foreign bankers out as well so no loans because they feared another wallstreet crash where the German economy would be tied to wallstreet.
If the BEF had been destroyed at Dunkirk the British may have agreed to peace terms, without an army in 1940 they were completely vulnerable to invasion.
All the resources Germany needed was in the south of Russia but they kept flip flopping between North and south.
Battle of Kursk was the major turning point, after that the Germans hadn't the capability to conduct offensive operations anymore and could not make up the losses of men and equipment. They took the offensive at the battle of the buldge but even then they would have run out of steam if successful and they were dependent on capturing allied fuel.
I don't think it was chance that us carriers weren't at pearl harbour, the real stroke of luck was the Japanese not striking the fuel depots at pearl harbour, that would have taken a year or two to make good, ships can't sail without fuel.

[Zestyassmf1997]

German economy was fine. It was over by the time that Kursk happened. The Soviet Union was just fielding and churning out too many armies. You take back Kursk, then what? The Soviets will just bring up more troops, and your still just stuck in the ass end of nowhere. Another thing, I think was that the German economy wasn’t on total war footing until like ‘43 or ‘44, I think.

[Drewtate]

The Germans were rearming quickly between 1933& 1939. Over this period they took in 62 Reichmarks but spent 101 Reichmarks. Germany lacked raw materials and the same raw materials were expensive while manufacturered goods which Germany relied on was at an all time low. They were trying to be self succient with synthetic alternatives to oil etc but it wasn't enough.
The German economy wasn't really on a war footing until 41 & Britain was out producing them. The problem was their manufacturing industry was outdated. A lot of German manufacturers labor and time intensive while others stamped steel and welding as much as possible they were milling steel.
Kursk was the last role of the dice but it was trap. It wasn't just the men or the tanks but the Germans would never have the fuel or ammunition to launch another such attack. The German economy started to come under serious attack in 43,44,45 which meant they had serious shortages meaning fewer tanks, planes, Bullets, bombs, shells etc and less synthetic oil, less trains to transport and more 88s and fighters needed to defend German industry rather than fight the Russians.
The problem wasn't Russian manpower, it was that the Germans ran out of ammunition and fuel so couldn't kill more and had to retreat. Blitzkrieg doesn't work without fuel and ammunition, definitely doesn't work if the enemy knows you are coming and is prepared.
If you look at what America and Britain gave to the Soviets through lend lease it was like they gave more of everything than the Germans had themselves. 400,000 studabaker trucks for instance, a lot of these the Soviets attached to their big ww1 era artillery pieces and towed them around the battlefield quickly and as a platform for stalins organ. They were given an entire airforce and 12,000 tanks. Radar, sonar, radios, food, trains. Almost anything they asked for they got.

[lightbulb27]

We'll... make peace with Russia to get their resources. Make peace with brits and renegotiate the WWI reparations, and try to get some of their Tikka Masala... German food is just awful and they know it... enough with the snausages and saurkfraut.

For Hitler, maybe he should have eaten some read meat (he was a veggie guy) and gone to therapy. He could have expelled all the Jews to some new home country he made up in a deal with the English, call it Israel. Throw them all there, don't hurt anyone.

Japan, negotiate and accept terms. That be a win. Like Mike Tyson said... everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the face. So they could have won if they had drunk more sake and prayed to a loving God and thought a little harder. As it was, not very humble, they took a shot, and got their people slaughtered and many others, and it was awful. live and learn.

we could learn some of those lessons now. We could sink into war in a second...

[Drewtate]

Germany was going broke by 1939. No trade and no loans. It had blown its wealth on ww1.
The Arabs were revolting that's why the British was limiting jewish immigration.
Ideally Germany should have modernised its industry before ww2 and secured oil supplies.

[Joshydavid25]

Easy answer is if the U. S had joined the Axis.. It would've been a done deal for them.. But the Axis was out fought by logistics, financial planning, and the allies having a superior supply chain.. It also would have help them if Germany didn't waste so many Resources and Japan just didn't pull a Pearl Harbor at all..

[Drewtate]

Germany lacked resources, that's why their entire supply chain was pulled by horses or trains.
Britain's control of the sea meant no trade with the us. With no Britain in the war Germany could have traded with the us the way Britain did as well as maybe Britain for resources and weapons. Imagine mass produced us shermans with swastikas blitzkrieging through Russia. Imagine all that lend lease aid given to Russia in the hands of the nazis. German 262s with British designed engines built in American factories. How about German soldiers armed with M1 Garands or MP44s mass produced in the US. Even just American oil supplies with US Studabaker trucks, the Soviet Union were given 430,000 trucks.
In a darkest reality the US was sailing pretty close to right wing extremism as bad if not worse than fascism and nazism with the KKK in the 20s and 30s.

[Joshydavid25]

Exactly if the U. S had sided with Axis or at assisted then they could've had the resources to win.. But also Germany wasted a lot of resources on the enslavement of their Jewish citizens.. And the U. S was already on bad terms with Japan.. Pearl Harbor was basically a build up from years is bad blood..

[Drewtate]

Not that many resources on the Jews. They weren't exactly feeding them and they were a cheap workforce. They also used conscripts from all over Europe to build fortifications and other manual labor projects.
The US was imposing embargoes on Japan trying to stiffle the Japanese economy which was building a formidable fleet that was a major threat to the US Navy as well as supporting the Chinese national army against Japan because a successful conquest of China would have made Japan insanely wealthy. Japan had 6 months of fuel for its navy and not much more for the Japanese army. Japan needed resources to keep expanding or they'd have to pull out of China. Pearl Harbour wasn't that big a surprise to the us leadership, they pushed Japan into attacking which would give the us reason to go to war.

[Joshydavid25]

Yeah true, I think it was a losing battle from the beginning in the first place.. Germany or Japan didn't have the resources or the man power to conquer the world like they wanted to.. The Allied forces did especially once the U. S joined.. Japan could've conquered East Asian had the U. S not bombed it twice, but Germany probably would have collapsed under it's own weight sooner or later..

[Drewtate]

If Britain & France hadn't gone to war with Germany over Poland Germany would have been able to concentrate its resources and take over Russia as well as trade for resources with the British and French empires.
If the Japanese had just attacked the European empires in South East Asia (not vichy France part of the axis) America would not have gotten involved and they would have had the resources they needed.

[zagor]

You seem to be forgetting the land war in Russia that decimated the Wehrmacht. It was Hitler's indecision and poor planning that led to the disaster there.

Japan actually fought skirmishes with Russia before Operation Barbarossa but did not have the armor to fight an open land war. Besides which what would the point be in seizing large chunks of Siberia.

[Drewtate]

It was the lack of resources that decimated the wermarct and the Soviets being supplied by the us. They always fell short. The plan was always to take the resources they needed from the Soviet Union.
Siberia is pretty ruch in resources and it was in Northern manchuria. The Soviets brought a lot of firepower.

[Dargil]

The Nazi's were ahead on development of nuclear weapons but (I have read) they made a fundamental error in the molecular weight of of "heavy water" that slowed them down and their oppression of Jews like Einstein did as well.

The defeat of the Japanese was inevitable. We has them outgunned. LeMay was already annihilating them.

[Drewtate]

The Germans big problem was the expense of developing am atom bomb and the nearest uranium they needed being in Russia

[Dargil]

Good thing.

[exitseven]

My father was in a German POW at the end of WW2. He said if Hitler had enough petrol he would have won

[Drewtate]

This is true.

[DarkLegacy]

Just proves that the British Empire is the greatest thing in history. And everybody owes their existence to it.

[Drewtate]

Well the United States won ww2 & ww1 for the matter.

[DarkLegacy]

Oh yes because we did nothing did we. learn your history, we did most of the fighting. You yanks make me laugh, what took you so, long in both wars.

[Drewtate]

Maybe in WW1 you did most of the fighting but we went island hoping in the Pacific flushing fanics out of ratholes.
The Russians did most of the fighting in WW2. The USAF destroyed the luftwaffe over Germany. Remember who's tanks you were driving in the desert and Europe. Remember who supplied your military.
Like I said the US won WW2. Winston Churchill sold us the British empire for 50 old destroyers.

[DarkLegacy]

You did fuck all in France or Germany, you only got involved when Japan attacked you.

[Drewtate]

You choose to appease Hitler then shit yourself when he beat you both in a month then cane to us with your begging cup. Both Britain and France were in postion to stop Hitler in 1938 and Again when Hitler invaded Poland but did nothing.
Again the US won WW2. Germany lost. Japan lost. France lost. Britain lost. Poland lost. Greece lost. Italy lost. Norway lost. Holland lost. Belgium lost. The Soviet Union broke even.

[DarkLegacy]

We did not lose to the nazis you thick uneducated Yank idiot, he never successfully invaded us. We fought him, we were there at his front door when he killed himself. Go and get an education you deluded yank idiot. We were quite clearly the only country to stand up to Hitler, and as for the yanks you are not capable of winning a war. Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. We also saw off Argentina, we see off anyone who tries to take us on. The EU included

[Drewtate]

Your cities were destroyed and were still in ruins when German, Japanese, italian and French cities were rebuilt. Rationing last 10 years after the war ended. You lost your empire. Rhodesia and south Africa went their own way. You lost all that middle Eastern oil. Canada and Australia looked to America rather than Britain. Your shipbuilding, car, coal, air and steel industries collapsed. Your military became a shadow of its former self. Britain lost WW2.
Vietnam was part of the overall cold war which we won. We tied up Soviet and Chinese resources in Vietnam, bled the north Vietnamese and supported the South Vietnamese. The Vietnam war was a civil war, the Vietnamese lost.
We won in Iraq. The taliban retreated to Pakistan for 20 years until we left, then they defeated the Afgan national army, so a civil war that the afgans lost in, also remember that Britain was spart of that war and had been defeated in Afghanistan quite a few times in the 1800s.
You won only in Argentina because we armed you with new sidewinder missile that could fire head on. The Argentine airforce was no big deal. A single us aircraft carrier group would have wiped it out on the argentine mainland.

[DarkLegacy]

We used our own ships in the Falklands, you have been watching too many yank films. The Empire only went because we freed the countries from German and Italian control, and you did lose the Vietnam war

[ChefPapiChulo]

Everyone but the US and the Soviets won. And yes the Soviets did win. The came out of the war an industrial powerhouse. They came out better than they were before.

The UK is nothing anymore.

[DarkLegacy]

@ChefPapiChulo The UK still won the war

[Drewtate]

@ChefPapiChulo no the Soviets came out broke but had half of Europe. The west being under the influence of the us was able to set tariffs on trade. It also lost 30 million. It still had bread ques despite being a massive producer of wheat and barley.
Its focus on the spread of international communism, keeping up in the arms race and its lack of technologies advancement eventually broke the Soviet Union up.

[ChefPapiChulo]

No they didn’t. They got their asses beat with the Belgians and French. They were relying on never invading and turning the Soviets and Germans against each other.

I guess it would depend on what you mean by won tho. Because there were only 2 clear winners after it was over and it was the US and Soviets. The 2 superpowers.

[ChefPapiChulo]

@drewtate no one cares what you think.

[ChefPapiChulo]

They were relying on never being invaded on land*

[bingbongbangbung]

Nothing great about America emerging from the British in 1776

[bingbongbangbung]

The US won the war by nuking Japan twice and turning the tide in the Allies' favour; go cry Anglo

[Drewtate]

@ChefPapiChulo nonsense if the western allies were waiting for the Soviet Union and nazi Germany to fight each other they would not have declared war on Germany in 1939, instead they would have signed a non aggression treaty and sold weapons to Germany and sat back and waited for Germany to invade Russia

[ChefPapiChulo]

Bro what are you talking about? it's not even debated that Hitler was paranoid about the Soviets invading. The Soviets even sent the letter they got from Winston Churchill. The west was trying to play them against each other lmao.

Next time you respond with nonsense like that, you get no reply.

[Drewtate]

@ChefPapiChulo stalin was britphobic from the British interference in the Russian civil war and arming the white faction but Winston Churchill warned the Soviets that the Germans were going to invade and stalin ignored it. Stalin even ignored the German invasion as it was taking place blaming it on British spies. There's no denying that Hitler wrote in 1925 that he would invade Russia 16 years before

[DarkLegacy]

@ChefPapiChulo Exactly no one does care what he thinks

[Drewtate]

You mcdonalds employees stick together lol

[DarkLegacy]

@drewtate i dont work for mcdonalds, with your level of intelligence that is your department

[Drewtate]

Just keep flipping those burgers 🍔

[ChefPapiChulo]

Lmao. Watching drewtate talk history is mind numbing.

[DarkLegacy]

@ChefPapiChulo Yeah tell me about it

[Drewtate]

Fast food workers thinking they intellectuals lol

[Pterodon]

His biggest mistake was invading Russia. The loss at Stalingrad was the turning point in the war in Europe. His second mistake was absent mindedly declaring war on the US after we declared war on Japan. He gave it no thought

[Pterodon]

Yamamoto said he could only guarantee victories in the first six months of the war. It was six months damn near to the day when the loss at Midway occurred turning the tide against Japan. They were relying on a quick knock out blow which didn’t happen. The luftwaffe was incapable of building a suitable heavy bomber to carry out bombing campaigns

[Drewtate]

War between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany was always coming. Germany was running out of resources and the Royal Navy was blockading Germany from global trade. They were going to run out of oil. They failed in Russia because half of their resources were tied up defending Germany, fight the battle of the Atlantic, occupying captured territory and fighting in North Africa and the Mediterranean.
It wasn't a mistake, it was the only option left on the table and it was do or die. They just fell short every time running out of resources. Blitzkrieg doesn't work if you got no fuel.
Declaring war just made it easier for FDR, it was a real gift. It wasn't like the Emperor was going to declare war on the Soviet Union and invade northern manchuria to support the German war effort.
My personal opinion is that the axis should have concentrate on the British empire, eliminated it, then the Soviet Union Next and the US after though it would have been a stalemate. If the AXIS had coordinated the way the allies coordinated with each other it might have been a different war.

[Drewtate]

Yamato was right. The Japanese Navy had fuel for about 6 months of combat operations and couldn't easily replace combat loses. The Japanese Navy was also in competition for resources with Japanese army which was fighting in China. Then there was the threat of the royal navy which was arguably the most powerful Navy in the world in 1941 with aircraft carriers and battleships.
The luftwaffe were capable of building heavy bombers but they didn't need heavy bombers, the luftwaffe was built to support blitzkrieg bf109s to knock out fighters and bombers and medium bombers to support the advance of the army. The luftwaffe was largely stuck in 1939 due to a lack of resources, outdated German industry and factories being bombed. The luftwaffe couldn't fight without fuel and started to be Mia over Russia due to being pulled back to defend German airspace. The Japanese to were stuck in 1939, unable to produce anything better, problems with engines. Basically AXIS aircraft were what they needed. The British for instance developed strategic bombers early in the war at the expense of tanks, anti tank guns and carrier aircraft, only the us could do it all at the same time.
Us aircraft carriers weren't missing from pearl by chance. The Japanese failure to destroy the fuel silos at pearl was a major blunder, might have set us operations back by two years.

[Anonymous]

If the liberal Chamberlain hadn't got cancer so did a deal with Germany whereby Churchill would have just been a random politician

Pone of that noted quite was of course 'you don't argue with a tiger when your head is in it's mouth'

[Passerby2]

A faster victory over Britain. Churchill won ww2 by not surrendering. Hitler planned on ordering Britain to declare war on America... never happened obviously.

[Drewtate]

Yet the British empire collapsed after ww2, British cities were ruins long after Europe rebuilt. The economy went into the toilet. Rationing lasted another 10 years after ww2. British car industry, shipbuilding industry, steel industry, aeronautic industry and mining industry went into the toilet after ww2 ended. Churchill sold off the Empire for 50 old us destroyers.

[Passerby2]

Yeah he was a duphus. By all accounts. A resolute duphus.

[RedInnocent68]

Nothing. Between the Commonwealth/Americans and the Russians, it was only a matter of time.

[Drewtate]

America needed a reason to go to war, we deliberately pushed the Japanese until they gave us one.
The US & British Empire kept the Soviet Union in the war by both blockading and putting embargoes on the AXIS powers and supplying the Soviets with everything they needed to fight, imagine what the Nazis could have done in the Soviet Union if they had half of what the Soviet Union was supplied.

[DextroShade]

Hitler getting nuclear weapons.