Did the Axis have any chance at all in WWII?

[Ned]

What would have happened had Hitler NOT invaded Poland, but instead ALLIED with her to invade Russia?

Ned

[orange]

Originally posted by Ned
What would have happened had Hitler NOT invaded Poland, but instead ALLIED with her to invade Russia?

Ned

Poland? Invade the Soviet Union? BWAHHHHAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAHAAAAHAHHAH AHAHANBANANAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA :deep breath: BWAAAAAAAAHAHHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAHAHAB ANANAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That was a good one

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by orange
Russo-Japanese war? That was a Japanese victory

Plus, it was even before WWI.

[orange]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Plus, it was even before WWI.

yup, and that's the only thing I can think of...

[Mr. President]

If Germany had not attempted the disastrous invasion of Russia, but had rather leaned on Britain until they fell, they would have been able to gain control of the entire eastern shore of the Atlantic Ocean from Norway to the Sahara. Dislodging them would have been difficult.

But perhaps the first point is irrelevant anyway. German aircraft lacked the range to trouble targets beyond Britain's southern reaches. Without clear air superiority invasion would have been difficult to say the least.

[David James]

Originally posted by orange


hmmm, not sure I follow this...

his easiest gains were in northern and western Europe. And barbarossa was possibly his greatest blunder of the war.

I think we've established that Germany could not have defeated England, at least, not taken it over with land forces...no chance.

They might have been the easiest gains, but they were pyrhic gains... the cost of those territories was the amount of manpower uselessly employed to garrison them. The Germans came *very* close to succeeding with Barbarossa; they may even have won it were it not for the 6 weeks wasted in Southern Europe (the Balkans, Greece and Crete - which deprived them of airborne troops as well). But they certainly would have won it with the additional troops that were occupying Western Europe. For instance, on January 1944, there were 179 divisions fighting in the East and 26 in SE Europe. But there were 53 in Western Europe, 22 in Italy and 16 in Scandinavia. Yes, most were in the East but a significant chunk were elsewhere doing not too much, and this was true for the entire war.

I've not changed my name; ask David Floyd or Bodington's

[orange]

yes, but France and England had already declared war. They'd still need to hold the western front, if not conquer it as they did.

Hmmm, i suppose you're not a frequenter of the OT then?

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, David James has been here for a long time... just hasn't posted much lately.

[TCO]

WQelcome..el presidente!!

[Ned]

Originally posted by orange


Poland? Invade the Soviet Union? BWAHHHHAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAHAAAAHAHHAH AHAHANBANANAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA :deep breath: BWAAAAAAAAHAHHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAHAHAB ANANAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That was a good one

Yeah, and in retrospect, it is probably one of the few ways Hitler could have won WWII. France and England may have even been on the same side as Hitler in that war given the politics of the time. Hitler would have invaded Russian in 1939! long before Russia would have had time to bring the T34 into production. It would have been a cakewalk.

Later, in exchange for "granting" Poland vast new lands in Russia, the Germans may have gotten back the corridor to Danzig and beyond.

Ned

[Rogan Josh]

I don't think it would have been too hard for Germany to win WW2. The fact that they didn't was down to having loonies in charge -- Hiltler in Germany and Churchill in the UK.

The only big mistake Germany made was attacking the USSR. If they had kept them on the sidelines, there would have been no problem. They expanded massive amounts of troops and weaponary on the Eastern Front which, had it been used on the Western Front, would easily have demolished any UK/US invasion.

Also, I think Germany didn't expect the UK's behaviour with that melgomaniac Churchill in charge. They offered the UK a fairly fair peace after the fall of France, which Churchill was stupid not to take. Instead Churchill prostituted his country to the US and the UK lost everything.

[our_man]

Hitler's biggest mistake was invading Russia, but given that this was the goal he had to acheive in order to provide Lebensraum in the East, I don't think a decision not to attack Russia would be realistic.

I believe the Axis could have won the war if Japan had joined Germany in taking out the Soviet Union instead of attacking the U.S.A. The only question is would the U.S. sit back and allow this to happen, or would they have decided to attack the Axis of their own accord, without provocation, in fear of the balance of power in the event of a complete Axis victory over Britain and the Soviet Union.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by orange


yup, and that's the only thing I can think of...

There was a brief clash over border lines in Manchuria in 1937 or 1938 I think. The Russians smashed the Japanese with their heavy armor, prompting the Japanese to design a heavier tank. The Japanese knew that with their meager resources they coul not afford to build in large numbers tanks with enough armor and gun power to match the Soviets, so they remained very reluctant to take on the Soviets again.

[Inverse Icarus]

i hate it when people make fun of Poland's war abilities. IT's basically a huge chunk of flat land between russia and germany, and every time it gets independence someone invades and claims it, or they split it up before order is restored.

to quote a Polish lady i saw on the History channel talking about the "Germanification" of Poles: "Nothing, not even death, can ever change the soul of a Pole". Being 25% Polish :d:

[Tom201]

Well it was beaten in ww1 and ww2 in notime. Saying Poland could have invaded Russia is a bit funny, no?

[Chris 62]

Hmm, could the axis have won?

Yes.

But it would have required careful planning, correct utilization of resources and competent leadership.

So forget Hitler, he never thought more then 6 months ahead on anything (if fact, he tried to lauch the war in France in October 1939, only halting on the vehimate protests of his subordinates. Source: Adolph Hitler by J Toland)

About Hitler and his sexual ideas, it must be remembered that hitler suffered from Parkinson's disease,
http://www.parkinson.org/hitlerspd.htm
Which hindered him somewhat sexually.
He seemed to have had no problems earlier, it seems he was caught with his pants down in the 30s with an English girl, as well a tryst with his niece that ended in her suicide.

Anything about Japan hinges on Germany, as Japan had no chance alone.

The thing about Barbarrossa, it wasn't an error to attack Russia per se, it was an error NOT to plan for a long campagin (Hitler and his short-sightedness again) nor to make provision for better weapons (refusing to listen about Jet aircraft and better tanks, for example), and Hitler was an ignormamus in naval strategy, a fatal mistake against martime nations like Britain and the USA.

[Dom Pedro II]

The most fundamental problem with this question is : What is the definition of winning World War II?

Even the Nazis themselves didn't know. I've said it before, and I'll say it again here. Winning a war depends heavily on having goals in mind. Hitler's was just sort of : We're gonna win!.... Well, what is winning? Annexing all of Europe into a Greater Germany? Or maybe just beating the Allies and ending the war as fast as possible while retaining the 1940 borders? Or taking over the whole world?

If its taking over the planet, the answer is absolutely no. 500 million cannot subjugate several billion people. Can't be done.

Germany solidifying control over all of Europe : could have been done. With or without U.S. intervention.

If Operation Sea Lion were pulled off by the Nazis they could have tried one of a few things :

1. Sign a peace treaty and non-aggression pact with Britain... chance of success : about 90%. The British would have probably agreed to that as long as it was just an immediate end to hostilities and not a humiliating treaty. Hitler, though, probably wouldn't have done that. Although he did wish to see the Germans and English as friends.

2. Put a friendly fascist regime (or semi-fascist or conservative authoritarian) in place in England and place that pro-fascist (forgot his name) king on the throne. chance of success : maybe 40%. The British probably wouldn't have cared for that too much, but if the invasion had been a smashing success they may not have had much of a chance to oppose it. Hitler probably would have gone for something like this.

3. Occupy Britain as a conquered region. chance of success : maybe 10%. The British never would have stood for this and would have been in constant rebellion, although with enough German troops, it might not have mattered at least over the course of the war.


Now, with England out of the way, Hitler would have had essentially all of Europe except for Greece which was on its way, and Spain and Portugal who weren't getting involved but would have been buddy buddy with Hitler if it looked like that was the man to be backing.

The trouble then is the Soviets. It can be assumed that one way or another Hitler was going to invade Russia. Even if the Panzers were sitting on the Pacific by early 1942, they STILL wouldn't have had Russia. It was just too vast to conquer. On the other hand, if Hitler had done the smart thing and utilized the anti-Stalin, anticommunist elements (in great numbers btw) in Eastern Europe, he could've won, but we all know Adolf was too idealistic for that. So he would've gotten stuck in the war, taken over Russian cities, and still the war goes on.

Now... America. If the British had been knocked out of the war, the Americans probably would not have been as eager to jump in. Remember, it was the pro-British Roosevelt administration who did alot to bring the U.S. around to war. In fact, most evidence today supports the idea that the Americans goaded the Japanese into attacking first as a pretext to enter the war in Europe. But with Hitler only battling the communists (which would've been great as far as everybody else was concerned... let the fascists and the communists wipe each other out) the administration might have taken less efforts to antagonize the Japanese.

But let's just say that December 7, 1941 happens... and let's just say that Hitler stupidly declares war on the U.S. for no real reason like he did in real life. Now, the U.S. would have one hell of a problem... America's greatest advantage, its isolation, would have been its greatest disadvantage with England out of the war. American industry, so capable to win, would've been useless.


with Britain out of the war, the great base for the U.S. would be gone. They'd have to fly all of their planes all the way from the U.S. (impossible). They would have to make an amphibious invasion without a base across the channel (impossible).

And even if they could do it, it would have taken until the late 40's to do it. By then, a whole new and more frightening possibility would emerge. Even in 1945, the Nazis were far from getting the atomic bomb... but by '48? by '49? They'd have had it! And they would have also had the jet bombers to reach the United States and the heartland of the USSR. While the Americans might have had the bomb by maybe '46, they'd have had no means to hit targets in Europe. Hitler, then, probably would have bombed New York or Washington or any other city on the east coast he liked. With bombs vaporizing Moscow, Leningrad, or farther.. the Soviets would have likely capitulated.

In the Pacific, if the Japanese had won at Midway, it could've paved the way for an invasion of Hawaii. The Americans would have to find a way then to make an amphibious invasion and recapture the islands, then begin the push westward toward Japan. Their would have been no possibility of ending the Pacific War with the bright flash of a bomb on Hiroshima in 1945 because American bombers would be unable to reach the Japanese islands without a base close by in the Pacific Ocean.

The result : By 1950 or so, Hitler could have created a Greater German Empire in central Europe with fascist allies in Italy, Spain, and France. He would've probably chosen to annex the Low Countries. England's fate would be uncertain, but it would most likely be as a neutral party not directly affiliated with Hitler. Stalin would have been gone, and probably some sort of fascist leader would have been heading a new Russian Empire. The United States, resentful and angry, yet unable to make headway on EITHER front without allies to support them, would have been forced to accept peace with Germany and Japan.

Millions more European Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and political opponents would have been systematically murdered in German concentration camps. Millions of Slavs would have died as slave laborers or killed in summary executions. Millions more Chinese would have been slaughtered reminiscent of the horrific scene of Nanking. If Japan had captured India, a similar scene would have followed. The Japanese, more brutal than the British, likely would have put the famed Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi to death. Everywhere in occupied lands, resistance would have continued. Hitler, Hirohito, Mussolini would have died and passed on to less idealistic, more practical leaders who would have eased the leashes around the territories. Eventually the great empires would have lost their control of their vast regions and satellite countries would have broken away as what happened to the Eastern Bloc countries. Nevertheless, the world would be a much worse place.

Of course, this is the worst case scenario. Furthermore, it depends on Hitler making shrewd decisions he was NEVER known to make as well as both the Japanese and Germans coordinating their plans which was again unlikely. Thank God the Battle of Britain was won by the right side and Operation Sea Lion never succeeded, and that the atomic bomb was never finished by Hitler's scientists. In those first few months of war, victory was still within anybody's grasp.

[Faeelin]

Sorry, but the USA was designing bombers designed to reach Europe from America by 41. For nukes, of course. 3 guesses where htey would've been used first if hitler was at war with America.

[Zkribbler]

WWII was a lot closer than it appears to us now:

1) What if the British had not gotten ahold of the Enigma Code in 1939 and spent to war reading top-secret German plans? Without Enigma, El Alemain (sp?) could not have been won. The Suez could have been cut and with it, Britain's supply line to India.

2) The RAF was about to collapse when Hitler changed the focus of his air attacks from the RAF to London and other cities. If he'd had taken out the RAF, then the Royal Navy would have been impotent to stop operation Sea Lion.

3) Operation Barbarossa was launched late because Hitler had to divert troops to help out Italy in Greece. If the invasion had gone off on time, Germany could well have conquered the Soviet Union.

4) The U.S. was reading the Japanese Code and therefore was able to ambush them at Midway, sinking 4 of their carriers (2 were attacking Alaska; 2 were in drydock).

5) The Axis would have done much better if Hitler had not made lots of blunders as the war went on...e.g. not pulling out of Stalingrad. Not sending winter clothes to the Eastern Front. Following von Rhunstead's (sp) strategy of hold panzers back from the Normandy beaches instead of Rommel's stategy of backing up the beaches with them. Not re-starting his A-bomb project after Norweigians blew it up.

[Sava]

Things the Axis could have done to win the War.

1. Employ the Me-262 jet fighter strictly as a fighter in the Battle of Britain. Hitler stopped production on the Me-262 in order to convert many of them into fighter/bombers. This could have crippled Britain and opened the island up to invasion.

2. Either attack the Soviet Union 3 weeks earlier, or wait until England was taken care of.

3. Japan should have waited and not attacked Pearl Harbor. The Americans were too reliant on Battleships at that point. The Japanese, in attacking Pearl, forced the Americans to realize how powerful carriers were. They then went to work building a huge carrier fleet which allowed them to island hop. If Japan had waited and fortified themselves in China, they could have had a chance in the Pacific.

4. If Germany and Japan had taken Russia and joined over Asia, they would have been unstoppable.

[Dom Pedro II]

Sorry, but the USA was designing bombers designed to reach Europe from America by 41. For nukes, of course. 3 guesses where htey would've been used first if hitler was at war with America.

Where were these alledged bombers then? I don't ever recall any designs for jet bombers or trans-Atlantic bombers being made in the United States. What I DO recall though is Allied troops siezing Nazi research studies and projects and taking a number of Nazi scientists to further their rocket and jet programs.

1. Employ the Me-262 jet fighter strictly as a fighter in the Battle of Britain. Hitler stopped production on the Me-262 in order to convert many of them into fighter/bombers. This could have crippled Britain and opened the island up to invasion.

As far as I know, the Me-262 didn't come around until the end of the war... the Battle of Britain and/or invasion of England would have had to have been much earlier for German success.

2. Either attack the Soviet Union 3 weeks earlier, or wait until England was taken care of.

According to military historian John Keegan, invading three weeks earlier might not have helped either. In fact, Russia has TWO main natural defenses against invasion. One, is the infamous Russian winter, but the OTHER is the Russian spring. When the spirng comes and the ice thaws, it turns the steppes into one big mess and armor would become bogged down in the mud, and crossing the rivers that criss-cross the land would be nearly impossible. The advance would have been trudging in mud, gotten a break in the summer, and then ground to a hault in winter with not much more than a few extra miles than what really happened.

3. Japan should have waited and not attacked Pearl Harbor. The Americans were too reliant on Battleships at that point. The Japanese, in attacking Pearl, forced the Americans to realize how powerful carriers were. They then went to work building a huge carrier fleet which allowed them to island hop. If Japan had waited and fortified themselves in China, they could have had a chance in the Pacific.

I do agree with this. What is also worth speculating is what would have happened had the three American aircraft carriers been in port when the Japanese attacked.

4. If Germany and Japan had taken Russia and joined over Asia, they would have been unstoppable.

Japan and the Soviet Union actually were fighting each other in north Asia in 1938 I believe. Nobody got anywhere though so they signed a non-agression agreement of sorts. (That's why the Soviets didn't agree to help in the Pacific until Yalta). With Soviet troops being diverted to the European front, however, the Japanese could very well have pushed into Siberia. That would have been quite useful to them given their serious oil shortages.

[Akka]

I'm going back to the root question :

Do you think that the Germans, Italians, and Japanese could have won World War II if they employed different strategies, or was the US too powerful?

This question means that the USA is already in war, and then that USSR too.
The answer then is simply : no.
Japan could inflict several defeats to USA, and sink half of its ship, but it would not make it victorious. USA just outmatched too much Japan in any ways (manpower, industry, ressources). It was just a question of time.

Same for Germany : USSR had a hard start, but once launched it was impossible to stop. What many seem to forgot with their wester-only point of view (like in this question with "was the US too powerful ?", like if US was doing the war alone), is that the USSR started to grind down Germany in winter 1942-1943 and never stopped 'til the end. If you look at a map of the WW2, you'll see that from that winter, Germany retreated constantly before the Russians. Germans were perhaps able sometimes to slow down the advance of USSR, but never to roll them back.

The only way for Axis to win the war would have been to get the atomic bomb first, as we all can guess that Hitler would not hesitate to use it heavily (he did not cared that much for civilian casualties, if you see what I mean...).
But except that, USA was too much for Japan, and USSR too much for Germany.

[David Floyd]

I'm gonna post more later, but Japan and Russia fought several battles in the late 30s (1937 IIRC), the most famous of which was at Nomohon (sp?). The Japanese were heavily defeated by Georgi Zhukov, which was the beginning of his rise to fame.

[David Floyd]

That would have been quite useful to them given their serious oil shortages.

Why? Siberia certainly wasn't helping the Russians in terms of oil, and they were much better equipped for cold weather oil exploitation than the Japanese.

According to military historian John Keegan, invading three weeks earlier might not have helped either. In fact, Russia has TWO main natural defenses against invasion. One, is the infamous Russian winter, but the OTHER is the Russian spring. When the spirng comes and the ice thaws, it turns the steppes into one big mess and armor would become bogged down in the mud, and crossing the rivers that criss-cross the land would be nearly impossible. The advance would have been trudging in mud, gotten a break in the summer, and then ground to a hault in winter with not much more than a few extra miles than what really happened.

Yes, but 4-6 extra weeks could have allowed the success of the Kiev Encirclement AND Operation Typhoon.

As far as I know, the Me-262 didn't come around until the end of the war... the Battle of Britain and/or invasion of England would have had to have been much earlier for German success.

Yes, and the Me-262 was never properly utilized as a fighter - Hitler was obsessed with jet BOMBERS. Further, in engagements with US P-51 Mustangs, the Mustangs achieved superior kill ratios due to things such as maneuverablity.

[Ethelred]

Further, in engagements with US P-51 Mustangs, the Mustangs achieved superior kill ratios due to things such as maneuverablity.

I have allways had the suspicion that the Me 262 had inadaquate guns. More than big enough but too darn slow for the speed of the plane. Plus they had more planes than they could put engines in. The jet engines didn't last long due to the Germans having shortages of higher temperature materials.

[David Floyd]

Mikhail,

Germans could have, if they had a smarter leader who didn't commit so many men to racist genocide. Also, Britain was losing pretty bad, Germany COULD have offered Britain peace half-way through the war, and simply kept their gained territory in Europe.

The Brits never would have accepted peace.

The Japanese could have won as well, if they hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor. Seriously, I doubt the US would have cared whether or not Japan controlled China. FDR would have most likely never been able to convince the US public that entering the war was a must if not for Pearl Harbor.

They had to attack Pearl in order to get the Dutch East Indies - the US fleet was their main obstacle and they had to have oil.

orange,

However, barbarossa, if implemented earlier (as it was supposed to) may have proved more lucrative than it was after north africa...i still don't think they would have won, though...maybe just taken and held Leningrad, Stalingrad, maybe a stalemate over moscow

The Germans nearly took Moscow in November of 1941 - they needed only 1-2 more weeks of good weather. Taking Moscow would have deprived the Russians of their transportation hub, and their ability to rapidly shift troops around. Germany could possibly have won if they took Moscow and then gone all out for Stalingrad and the Caucasus is 1942, as well as getting the Finns to go after Leningrad.

Vel,

Should have sued for peace somewhere,

Again, the Brits would never have accepted. This is made especially clear in Churchill's 5 volume history of WW2.

KH,

I don't think it would have succeeded, but it was Hitler's best chance of getting across the Channel.

Possibly, but the plans for Sealion called for an initial force of 30+ divisions on a broad front - a small beachhead can be contained, especially with Britain's arsenal of chemical weapons, which would have been used. The problem was the Luftwaffe could not cover a broad landing front.

I'm saying that sea lion gave the best chance Hitler was ever going to have. The longer he waited, the worse things got.

I disagree. His best chance was to use airborne troops to take Malta in 1940 or 1941, followed by a bigger (another 1-2 Panzer divisions and a couple of infantry divisions) to North Africa, in order to reach the Suez and Palestine, while equipping Arab nationalist revolts on a larger scale, potentially forcing the collapse of Churchill's government. Follow this up with an early Barbarossa while the Brits are hurting bad militarily and politically, as well as targetting convoy escorts, which Britain was short of, in order to make future convoy attacks much much easier.

orange,

I agree, but I still don't think he ever had a shot at doing it successfully...even assuming he went for it right after Poland...or even right after Norway...

After Poland Germany was essentially out of offensive military potential and had to rebuild. After Norway/before France, he didn't have the invasion ports, not to mention the heaviest undamaged ship in the Kriegsmarine was a single heavy cruiser (Prinz Eugen IIRC).

Dr Strangelove,

The US did care about China, that's why we cut the Japanese supply of American oil and iron off. It was known that their oil reserves would reach a critical low in 18 months. They believed that they could survive if they took the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies, but realized that they couldn't leave the Phillipines in US hands because the US could completely block off the Dutch East Indies with airpower alone.

Spot on.

Cav,

Germany could of taken England if Hitler had allowed the German army to destroy the BEF at Dunkirk instead of stopping it and letting the Luftwaffe attempt to destroy it. Then using the Luftwaffe's numerical advantage to capture the airspace above the English Channel and Southern England, airborne landings could capture Southern English port cities and pave the way for seaborne landings of the German army. With almost no professional army or weapons England couldn't hold out for long.

Maybe, but don't forget Britain's chemical weapons which would have been used against any invasion.

Combined with Japanese landing in the East the USSR would have collapsed.

Nomohon made this impossible, not to mention Japan's massive commitment (1 million men) to China, and their necessary deployments in southern Asia.

DS,

By D-day the Germans definiely did not have the US outmanned, at least not on the western front. You have to take into consideration that a significant number of western front troops were actually prisoners and work units, some of which were more dangerous to their officers than to the allies.

True, but the 21st Panzer Division actually drove to the sea between Allied beachheads - if Germany had armor in the right place in the right time, or if Jodl was not too afraid to wake Hitler and secure a release of armored reserves, a successful D-Day counterattack was within the realm of possibility, air power notwithstanding.

Germany could have preparesd for winter war. They could have at least made winter uniforms for the troops. If they could have just halved their losses to frost bite in the winter of '41-'42 they might have been able to meet their objectives in the '42 offensive. That's still not saying that they would have put Russia out of the war.

Yes, their mistake was assuming a modern Russian road system and a weaker government, such as in France.

Japan had the "Tanaka Plan", an elaborate blueprint for imposing Japanese civilization on the whole world. The basic idea was to capture China, which would supply the manpower. The Japanese were then to sail east to the US, whose conquest would supply the resources. With the manpower of China and the resources of the US the rest of the world would be a cakewalk.

Impossible to implement.

David James,

The biggest mistake was pointlessly invading Northern and Western Europe, especially with no plan to invade England. If he had had any brains he would have just spent 1940 building up his army and fortifying the Rhineland (the Siegfried Line). The British and French public would just have gotten bored with the war and Hitler would have been free to invade Russia in the East the following year (when he did).

Possible, but unlikely. As I said, peaceful settlement was impossible, and eventually France/Britain would have grown some balls and gone after the Ruhr and Saar.

I've not changed my name; ask David Floyd or Bodington's

Indeed - this guy is Old Guard

DS,

The Japanese knew that with their meager resources they coul not afford to build in large numbers tanks with enough armor and gun power to match the Soviets, so they remained very reluctant to take on the Soviets again.

Yes, they estimated over 200,000 motorized vehicles would be needed even for a minor war seizing the Maritime Provinces. Unfortunately for Japan, they hardly had this many spread over Japan and their whole empire.

Uber,

i hate it when people make fun of Poland's war abilities.

Poland had a lot of men and a few decently modern aircraft, but no chance against Germany/USSR.

Dom Pedro,

1. Sign a peace treaty and non-aggression pact with Britain... chance of success : about 90%

Make that 0%.

in 1945, the Nazis were far from getting the atomic bomb... but by '48? by '49? They'd have had it!

Wrong. Not only were they on the wrong track, but they didn't even have all the necessary materials. Even the USSR, with a spy ring inside the Manhatten Project, didn't get one until 1949.

Hitler, then, probably would have bombed New York or Washington or any other city on the east coast he liked.

How?

In the Pacific, if the Japanese had won at Midway, it could've paved the way for an invasion of Hawaii.

I doubt it - they would have been defeated by ground based air power IMO.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Without the US the Japanese would have driven the British back to Australia and made the Eatern Pacific their playground. The British would still have driven the Axis out of North Africa, and the Russians would have steamrollered them right to the Atlantic.

Without Russia in the picture (also assuming the Germans don't have to even defend on that front), the Germans could have taken North Africa. Britain would have held out, and you'd be left with a cold war across the Channel.

It's funny how you think the US did most of the work in WWII...

You misunderstood what I was asking. I think. I didn't mean "What would happen if the US wasn't in WWII." I meant Could Germany, Japan, and Italy have taken over the world with a bit more luck, or was heir loss inevitable.

[Serb]

Originally posted by orange


Poland? Invade the Soviet Union? BWAHHHHAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAHAAAAHAHHAH AHAHANBANANAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA :deep breath: BWAAAAAAAAHAHHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAHAHAB ANANAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That was a good one

What so funny?
In early 30s Poland considered as the most probable enemy of SU.
KrazyHorse,
The SU and Japan have military conflicts in 1938- the Hassan Lake and in 1939 the Halkhin-Gol river. The Japanese were defeated. And SU helped to China in war against Japan, sending weapons, soldiers, planes etc. Russian pilots fought on China side.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

You misunderstood what I was asking. I think. I didn't mean "What would happen if the US wasn't in WWII." I meant Could Germany, Japan, and Italy have taken over the world with a bit more luck, or was heir loss inevitable.

The answer is no. The Soviet Union was quite capable of finishing off Hitler by itself. Additionally there was an intensifying guerilla war throughout Europe.

Even if the Japs had managed to keep the US out of the war, when they took control of the Dutch East Indies they'd discover that many of the fields had been sabotaged by the Dutch and British. Consquently their war effort was doomed to fail no matter what.

[David Floyd]

JW,

I meant Could Germany, Japan, and Italy have taken over the world with a bit more luck, or was heir loss inevitable.

They had no way to invade the US, which was way ahead on A-bomb development. Their only chance was forcing a political solution with Britain by getting Churchill out of office BEFORE Dec. 7, 1941 (probably by taking Malta, Egypt, and, with possible/prerequisite Spanish help, Gibraltor), and successfully taking Moscow in 1941 followed by Leningrad, Stalingrad, and the Caucasus in 1942.

serb,

In early 30s Poland considered as the most probable enemy of SU.

Yes, Poland kicked Russia's ass in the 1920s, and initially Colonel Beck (head of the Polish government) tried to climb into bead with Hitler, seizing part of Czechoslovakia in 1938.

But a Polish invasion of the USSR? I doubt it, except under German control as a minor partner (such as, say, Romania), which was unlikely because of German designs on Poland.