Could the Axis have won World War II ?

[Banzai Kamikaze]

Ok, now this topic has been discussed to death in other forums, but I want to know what YOU, the members of this great forum, think about it.

So, do you think the Axis could have defeated the Allies during World War II ?

If you say yes, state where the Axis went wrong and made fatal mistakes.

If you say no, show how the Axis never had a chance of defeating the Allied.

Try to stay coherent and more or less realistic with you arguments.

I'll state what I think after I see a few answers.

PS: By the Axis, I mean the original Axis Alliance: Germany, Italia, Romania, Japan, Hungria, Bulgaria and Slovakia.

[Archangel Zero]

There's really nothing new to say, so I figure, why bother to say anything?

Just my opinion, post at will.

[The Beast of Caerbannog]

Yes.

Operation Eagle was the code name of what later became known as the Battle of Britain. Operation Eagle was planned as a prelude to Operation SeaLion which was a large scale invasion of the Brittish Isle (particularily England). The first conception of Operation Eagle saw it as a massive Air Domination battle which would pit the Luftwaffe against the Royal Air Force over the English Channel and part of Southern England. The Luftwaffe would have surprise, superiority in numbers and a single target: enemy aircrafts. However, along the way, Operation Eagle was modified to include the strategic bombing of brittish radar position and industrial centers. However, in 1940, Nazi Germany had yet to devellop a capable long-range bomber. The brunt of the assault was thus to be carried out by dive bombers, and, strangely enough, by fighters equipped to deliver small payloads of bombs, escorted by more fighters. There is no doubt in that german units were used ineffectively. But to top it all, after the August 25th raid on Berlin by a small unit of brittish bombers, Hitler ordered, against the advice of his High Command, to grind their [the brittish] cities to dust. The bombing thus distracted the Luftwaffe from its main and most important objective: air domination.

In pure numbers (2000 vs less then 700), the Luftwaffe should have destroyed the R.A.F.

Now if Operation Eagle had been successful and Operation SeaLion had taken place, the most probable outcome of the battle (as re-enacted by the Royal Military Academy after the war) would have been a quick nazi advance in southern england which would have slowed down around London, allowing the Royal Navy to cut off german supply routes. However, since Churchill had lost most of his support in Parliament after the Battle of Dunkirk, the total loss of the R.A.F. and an invasion of Brittish soil would most propably resulted in his replacement as Prime Minister in favor of Lord Halifax who was a proponent of peace talks with Hitler.

The submission of Great Britain to Nazi Germany during WWII would have thus given reprieve to continental Germany and Occupied France, allowing the nazi to trun their strength towards the East and towards Africa. It would also have nearly handed over all brittish and french african colonies to the Germans and Italians and would have allowed the german and italian navies to sail out into the Atlantic to split the American fleet between to naval wars.

A fascist victory would not have been assured by Great Britain's withdrawal from the conflict, but it would have much improved the odds of ending the conflict sooner and in peace negociations which would most probably have been in favor of the Axis powers of the West.

Of course, many other events of WWII, if they had played out differently, might have handed victory over to Hitler and Mussolini, but, in my opinion, the fiasco of Operation Eagle is the single greatest mistake of the axis powers.

[Banzai Kamikaze]

For those who are scared to post, I forgot to mention that a thourough knowledge of World War II is NOT required for you to post on this thread

Now, let me analyze Fx's post. Well thought and certainly pertinent.

The bombing thus distracted the Luftwaffe from its main and most important objective: air domination.

Agreed. Switching objective from RAF destruction to British cities and industries raids proved to be a fatal mistake, a mistake the Luftwaffe never really recovered from. While Britain was able to quickly replace destroyed aircrafts, Germany lacked sufficient aircraft production, and the few produced were sent all around Europe.
The damaged Luftwaffe would be stretched so thin they had no chance to resist the Allies' Air Forces.

In pure numbers (2000 vs less then 700), the Luftwaffe should have destroyed the R.A.F.

Now, I have no idea where you get your sources, but I have to disagree with these numbers. I think you underestimate the numbers of aircrafts implied in the Battle of Britain. Though I can't recall the exact numbers, the British lost more than a thousand fighters (mostly Hurricanes), 370 bombers (destroyed on the ground) and 150 coastal aircrafts. Surely, the British had more than 2000 aircrafts at this time. The Luftwaffe had terrible losses: over 1 900 aircrafts were lost. If I recall correctly, the Luftwaffe had even more aircrafts than Britain.

Note that I'm not implying that it was impossible for the Luftwaffe to destroy the RAF in pure numbers. Even though the German Air Command lacked professionalism, German Fighters and Pilots were often superior than the british who did not have two campaigns of experience.

Now if Operation Eagle had been successful and Operation SeaLion had taken place, the most probable outcome of the battle (as re-enacted by the Royal Military Academy after the war) would have been a quick nazi advance in southern england which would have slowed down around London, allowing the Royal Navy to cut off german supply routes.

Agreed again. If Operation SeaLion had taken place, Britain would be in deep trouble, though their ground forces were far from small. However, I don't believe Sealion was anywhere near realistic. In my opinion,it would have been another of Hitler's terrible mistakes.

Let me explain.

For Operation Sealion to be succesful, the RAF has to be destroyed. However, this was impossible. If the RAF lost too many planes during Operation Eagle, it was planned to pull them back to the midlands, out of the German's range (and as you say, the Germans lacked long ranged bombers).

From there, the RAF would not have prevented the Germans from deploying on the British south Coast, but they would have slowed their advance like hell. As you say, the Germans need to destroy the British quickly before their lines of supplies are completely cut by the unsinkable British Navy. This was impossible unless at least two Armies were deployed quickly, and this again was impossible if the RAF was still operational.

So, it all comes down to whether it is realistic to assume that the RAF could be destroyed. To this question, I believe the answer is no, at least, not with realistic factors in my opinion.

Lord Halifax who was a proponent of peace talks with Hitler.

Interesting. Never heard about that. Got to take politic classes...

A fascist victory would not have been assured by Great Britain's withdrawal from the conflict, but it would have much improved the odds of ending the conflict sooner and in peace negociations which would most probably have been in favor of the Axis powers of the West.

Yes, but I don't believe Operation Sealion was realistic enough for the Germans to be much of a threat to Great Britain. Who knows, maybe if Hitler had not turned his attention East, Britain might be under the German flag today...

Maybe there was another more realistic way for Germany to vainquish the British... I leave it to you to find it (I believe there was one...).

The debate is still on !

[The Beast of Caerbannog]

For the numbers of planes I may be wrong. But let me clarify something: wether Operation Eagle whiped out the R.A.F. or not is unimportant. Germany only needed air domination over the English Channel and southern England to allow for the planned Operation SeaLion. Then again, it is agreed (as I say in my previous post) that the german forces would have been slowed down and ultimatly cut-off. But it was implied that with a defeat in the Battle of Britain coming on the heels of the defeat at the Battle of Dunkirk, Churchill would have lost his post. He was never popular to begin with (before the war that is) and the events of 39-40 had made him quite a pariah in Parliament. Axis victory would come from a capitulation followed by a declaration of neutrality by Britain in the very first days of Operation SeaLion. In truth, as you say, Operation SeaLion was doomed from the start. But since the British Isles had not been invaded (in force) since William the Conqueror, a series of major defeats followed by an invasion of the Motherland would have been enough to convince the Britts to stay out of the war.

Now, if you know of another axis strategy, go ahead. I doubt we'll have many others answering this post.



PS: You are right for the number of British aircrafts. The approximatly 700 was their number of *pilots*. It did prove a crucial difference as british pilots who bailed over the course of the battle could carry on the fight in other crafts, while german pilots drowned or were captured. As for Germany precise numbers would be 1,260 bombers; 316 dive-bombers; 1,089 fighters.

Casualties: -British 1,547 aircraft -German 1,887 aircraft

[Lolmaster]

Although i dont know as much bout WWII as i would have liked to, i do know how undergrounds work. The Axis would never be able to rule such big a landpiece without having to face revolutions. And with easier means of communications than at Roman times, it would have only been a matter of time before other nations dominated by the Axis would feel encouraged and would revolt.

Furthermore, i believe that if Hitler had engaged Kikkoman, he wouldve destroyed the Allies with his KIKKOBEAM!

[Syxix]

And you thought I was a threat to the integrity of these boards...

Muhahahahaha...

Rise, my breed of village idiots, rise!

Syxix

[BreathOfHades]

Rafi style!!!!








LOL!

[Banzai Kamikaze]

Furthermore, i believe that if Hitler had engaged Kikkoman, he wouldve destroyed the Allies with his KIKKOBEAM!

This is where you're wrong. A clear mark of poor history knowledge. A kikkobeam cannot pierce through a heavy armor. Tanks are unaffected by the beam. Granted it will diminish the effectiveness of the foot soldiers, but remember something called air strikes ? And what about supplies ?

A kikkobeam requires tons of Soya Extract to be effective. If you don't have air superiority, how can you protect your soya supply lines ?

The Axis would never be able to rule such big a landpiece without having to face revolutions. And with easier means of communications than at Roman times, it would have only been a matter of time before other nations dominated by the Axis would feel encouraged and would revolt.

Revolutions ? Not sure about that. Surely partisan warfare, but revolutions are usually against their own governments, not conqueror. And revolts can be crushed if you don't care about human rights...

At the end of the war, the Jewish in Varsovia revolted and were quickly crushed by the germans, leaving the city in ruins.

Revolts mostly harass an occupier, but they rarerely are a real threat. The danger would be if the revolts are accompanied by a full scale assault by an enemy. Then, the loss of ressources to crush the revolt can be very harming.

I might be diminishing the role of revolts, but I can't find any examples of revolts which worked against an occupier.