Where there any events in WW2 that could have led to an Axis victory?

[cacra]

Was WW2 really ever winnable for the Axis forces?

I think the early part of the war already went extremely well for the Axis but even if it went many times better better; Germany captured the BEF, Yugoslavia didn't revolt, Greece fell to Italy, Germany managed to completely capture Stalingrad, Japan managed to sink the Pacific fleet's carrier arm. It still seems very unlikely that the Axis would have won the war.

Even if you take it to the extreme and let Germany capture Moscow, I haven't seen anything that would suggest the loss of their capital would have lead to the collapse of the USSR - many in government had already evacuated before it became clear the city would hold.

Realistically, the war will always end in August 1945 with the use of the atomic bomb. I don't see any number of Axis strategic victories changing this.

 

[krieger11b]

Hitler not controlling the war so much and not setting up inter-agency fighting on purpose. Those two were some of the biggest reasons.

In addition to many discussed idiotic Hitler interfering with military/economic decisions many time before here, I will add some lesser known ones. Stopping most research in Radar for a long time as it wasn't an offensive weapon, even though eventually it became small enough to be used in aircraft for offensive purposes, much to the dismay of the U-Boot fleet. Spending more on the long range pointless rockets like the V-1 and V-2 than the US Manhattan Project that developed the nuclear bomb. With an economy that could not support it. Then the obsession with keeping the Channel Islands and devoting 10% of all Atlantic Wall materials go to the non strategic but UK owned islands.

The infighting between military branches government agencies was epic, just slightly better than the Japanese Army/Navy infighting. They would take forever to pass along information. A classic was the Luftwaffe captured a centrimetric radar from a crashed B-24 in France, when the Kriesgmarine thought such a powerful radar could not be air mounted and therefore did not setup radar detectors for such a narrow band. The Luftwaffe took almost TWO YEARS to tell the Kriegsmarine. The Riechmarschall and head of the Luftwaffe, Herman Georing and SS Chief Himmler spent their entire time in office trying to get the other one killed and as many people loyal to the other as possible. Georing would also not allow the German Army to staff anti aircraft weapons, only the Luftwaffe personnel could command AAA guns.

 

[Kovax]

The ONLY thing that I see as being a possible outcome changer between Germany and the Allies would be a major government shakeup in the UK, where a more pacifistic Prime Minister is willing to do a "negotiated peace" with Germany after Hitler dies in one of several assassination attempts, and the US never gets involved. From a pure military perspective, it was never "winnable", but politics can often do strange things for all the wrong reasons.

Germany had practically zero chance of invading England. There may have been the narrowest sliver of opportunity for a "long shot" surprise assault when the situation in France fell apart for the Allies, leading to panic and some kind of cease-fire, but Germany had not prepared long in advance for such an eventuality, so no surprise was possible. There was no chance of doing such an invasion in the face of a prepared Royal Navy, and no way to supply an invasion for more than a massive, brief, costly scare tactic.

The transport situation in the East made it all but unwinnable, and the lack of sustained focus on the principle objectives again converted "virtually no chance", heavily dependent on some internal shakeup within the Soviet Union in order to succeed, into "no chance".

Japan was never going to "win" against the US, and about the best it could hope for would be enough of an early hit on morale to get the US to negotiate a favorable truce, which was unlikely at best. Both the US and Japan badly misunderstood their opponent, leading to totally erroneous plans. The difference was that the US was able to afford the mistakes.

So, overall I'd have to say that, NO, the war was not "winnable" for the Axis, although there may have been a remote chance that the political situation would change and lead to a "negotiated truce" in which they didn't "lose".

 

[krieger11b]

The ONLY thing that I see as being a possible outcome changer between Germany and the Allies would be a major government shakeup in the UK, where a more pacifistic Prime Minister is willing to do a "negotiated peace" with Germany after Hitler dies in one of several assassination attempts, and the US never gets involved. From a pure military perspective, it was never "winnable", but politics can often do strange things for all the wrong reasons.

Yes, had Churchill not given the false sense of confidence to Lord Halifax that a negotiated peace with Germany was possible with Churchill as PM, Halifax decided to try and become the most likely next PM, a job he dreaded but would only do in order to end the war. With Halifax in charge it's pretty likely Germany would have peace on the Western Front. Without that thorn in it's side, the RN blockade, and men and material sapped from the Eastern Front to fight the UK and later other allies on the West, then maybe there was a slim possibility of victory against the USSR, or at the least, an endless stalemate ending in some kind of peace or indefinite cease-fire like with North Korea. Though likely the Nazi government collapses soon after anyways.

 

[Gil galad]

Yes, had Churchill not given the false sense of confidence to Lord Halifax that a negotiated peace with Germany was possible with Churchill as PM, Halifax decided to try and become the most likely next PM, a job he dreaded but would only do in order to end the war. With Halifax in charge it's pretty likely Germany would have peace on the Western Front. Without that thorn in it's side, the RN blockade, and men and material sapped from the Eastern Front to fight the UK and later other allies on the West, then maybe there was a slim possibility of victory against the USSR, or at the least, an endless stalemate ending in some kind of peace or indefinite cease-fire like with North Korea. Though likely the Nazi government collapses soon after anyways.

While not impossible, Halifax as PM would have made the job of a war/crisis cabinet very difficult as he wouldn't be able to defend himself in person in the house of commons. It would not have been very practical.

 

[ThaHoward]

If they had more manpower and resources. But they didn't, so well they failed in the end as they had not enough men and resources to continue their war.

Then there is also other arguments like if they hadn't treated the population in USSR so harsh they would have won there and so on. And yes that may be true, but then we ignore the very fact for why Germany went to war against USSR (and most of the Generals wanted this too) so we really can't include that.

And Hitler taking too much control of the war effort is actually largely a myth created by high ranking German officers after the war (for example the Blitz is seen as a "revenge act" by Hitler for UK bombing Germany. But the truth is that the Luftwaffe High Command already had planned this along and the British had bombed Germany before, but they misread the situation and went on to the next phase of the operation which were the bombing of London etc) But I believe what could have ended the war different is that Germany should have focused more on winning air superiority over the English Channel instead of Britain proper, in order to distrupt their fleet. But again, this is only looking at the Battle of Britain as an isolated case instead of just a part of a six year war. Also if the halt order had not been issued (also again, a myth that Hitler did it. While in fact most of the chiefs of the OKW wanted it to be halted in order to not strain the supply lines) were a major long term mistake.

 

[Arilou]

The germans not attacking the Soviet Union is the main possibility. Japan not attacking the US might have lead to at least some kind of gain in China.

Basically, "The only winning move is not to play."

 

[bz249]

Sure... October 1939, Britain and France accepts the fait accompli. From that point no. Germany cannot invade the UK, but neither Germany nor Italy will be satisfied with a negotiated peace what the UK might accept.

 

[krieger11b]

While not impossible, Halifax as PM would have made the job of a war/crisis cabinet very difficult as he wouldn't be able to defend himself in person in the house of commons. It would not have been very practical.

It does confuse me a bit how a Lord can be a Prime Minister. I am not an expert on parliamentary systems at all, it seems like Prime Minister is a job only a member of parliament can do. I tried researching it before on the PM, but the job has evolved so much from it's original purpose as to not really be the same thing it was in the beginning at all except for reporting the current events of the Parliament directly to the Monarch.

 

[Klausewitz]

Was WW2 really ever winnable for the Axis forces?

I think the early part of the war already went extremely well for the Axis but even if it went many times better better; Germany captured the BEF, Yugoslavia didn't revolt, Greece fell to Italy, Germany managed to completely capture Stalingrad, Japan managed to sink the Pacific fleet's carrier arm. It still seems very unlikely that the Axis would have won the war.

Even if you take it to the extreme and let Germany capture Moscow, I haven't seen anything that would suggest the loss of their capital would have lead to the collapse of the USSR - many in government had already evacuated before it became clear the city would hold.

Realistically, the war will always end in August 1945 with the use of the atomic bomb. I don't see any number of Axis strategic victories changing this.

It all comes down to the vicissitudes of morale:
Will Soviet Morale hold if the Germans steamroll unopposed or will the collaborationn grew many times its size?
Will British Morale hold if the BEF is caught and the Luftwaffe reigns freely across England?
Etc.
And also to the question how the atomic is/can be delivered.
No Atomic bomb on Tokyo without a victorious Pacific campaign, no bomb on Heidelberg without a reliable bomberstream from England.
And the vicissitude of morale keeps on:
Firebombing cities did little to cripple morale in either Germany or Japan. The homefront hunkered down, the front fought harder with revenge on its mind, so there is also the question whether a Fat Man or Tall Boy would do much to win the war if the strategic vision was otherwise great.

 

[cacra]

It does confuse me a bit how a Lord can be a Prime Minister. I am not an expert on parliamentary systems at all, it seems like Prime Minister is a job only a member of parliament can do. I tried researching it before on the PM, but the job has evolved so much from it's original purpose as to not really be the same thing it was in the beginning at all except for reporting the current events of the Parliament directly to the Monarch.

Constitutionally there is nothing to stop a Lord from being PM. Realistically though the last lord to become pm - Douglas-Home - resigned his peership and entered the commons. Back in the day the lords was the centre of power and so it made sense for the pm to be a lord, gradually the balance shifted until the 1911 Parliament Act which effectively established the commons' supremacy. Since that date (and probably before) a pm is the lords would be untenable.

 

[cacra]

It all comes down to the vicissitudes of morale:
Will Soviet Morale hold if the Germans steamroll unopposed or will the collaborationn grew many times its size?
Will British Morale hold if the BEF is caught and the Luftwaffe reigns freely across England?
Etc.
And also to the question how the atomic is/can be delivered.
No Atomic bomb on Tokyo without a victorious Pacific campaign, no bomb on Heidelberg without a reliable bomberstream from England.
And the vicissitude of morale keeps on:
Firebombing cities did little to cripple morale in either Germany or Japan. The homefront hunkered down, the front fought harder with revenge on its mind, so there is also the question whether a Fat Man or Tall Boy would do much to win the war if the strategic vision was otherwise great.

Honestly though I can't see any scenario where the British or Russian people surrender to the nazis. They had a much greater interest in preserving their sovereignty than the French. Even if the Germans did manage to land a few armies in Britain I think it would find the going very tough.

 

[bz249]

Honestly though I can't see any scenario where the British or Russian people surrender to the nazis. They had a much greater interest in preserving their sovereignty than the French. Even if the Germans did manage to land a few armies in Britain I think it would find the going very tough.

You mean that London or Moscow is not occupied unlike Paris.

That is the key difference why the French surrendered and the British or the Russians not... The Germans cannot win, because they themselves did not know what qualifies as a win. Their original intent was to capture (parts of) Poland. Nothing more.

So they win as long as the war ends up after conquering Poland. From October 1939 they are against a moving goalpost. Like they have no warplan about landing troops in the UK (that is the reason why they came up with the massive yet sloppy Sealion) heck they do not even had a peace plan for France. Singning a peace treaty with France was well within the realms of possibility in 1940-41, but they even fail to do that because they absolutely did not know what to do next.

 

[krieger11b]

Honestly though I can't see any scenario where the British or Russian people surrender to the nazis. They had a much greater interest in preserving their sovereignty than the French. Even if the Germans did manage to land a few armies in Britain I think it would find the going very tough.

If they did it after Dunkirk I think even a hasty paratrooper invasion would have done it. Not maybe get the whole island but enough to absolutely wreck moral and negotiation a peace deal. A great deal of serviceable weapons were laying around Dunkirk beach and the home defense was laughable at that time. The time Hitler gave them to have a white peace however made the task an order of magnitude harder.

Edit* Also if the West abandoned Poland as it did Czechoslovakia and Austria, then maybe a win is possible against the Soviet Union, Germany would have had thousands more planes around. German doctrine would have been much better too. Also if they do it earlier then Germany mostly faces BT tanks and not T-34s, well they did in 1941 too, but this time zero T-34s or KV tanks.

 

[bz249]

If they did it after Dunkirk I think even a hasty paratrooper invasion would have done it. Not maybe get the whole island but enough to absolutely wreck moral and negotiation a peace deal. A great deal of serviceable weapons were laying around Dunkirk beach and the home defense was laughable at that time. The time Hitler gave them to have a white peace however made the task an order of magnitude harder.

This might work if the following conditions are true:
- The German leadership had longer term goals than attacking Poland (so they have some negotiation framework)
- The German military actually wargamed some scenario how to land/airdrop troops in the UK (so they know, how many troops, weapons, what kind of transport they have etc)
- The German military had set this plan in motion the right time
- Germany and Italy have coordination between them
- The Italian military successfully plans and executes an invasion of Egypt paralell to the German landings

They offer something close to a white peace to the UK... I think it is easier to assume that sometime in the Winter of 1939 the Western Allies just back down.

 

[Klausewitz]

Honestly though I can't see any scenario where the British or Russian people surrender to the nazis. They had a much greater interest in preserving their sovereignty than the French. Even if the Germans did manage to land a few armies in Britain I think it would find the going very tough.

It all depends on the framework and the conditions.
Certain Brits would never have surrender, but for the great majority the question was what they would get in a peace:
A Britain that got a (believable) guarantue of a free-hand in its colonies as long as it stayed out of Europe would have probably been very willing to compromise; after all that had been the main focus of British foreign policy in Europe for centuries: Do whatever is necessary to keep any competition on the colonial front mired in difficulties in Europe.
And again for the Russians... well even if we assume your assumption is strictly true, that still leaves the thousand and one majorities and subject people in the SU to compromise with the Nazis, which quite a few did anyways... just think what would have happened if a second front had opened up for the Soviets in Siberia because the indigenous tribes wanted to try for independence.

 

[cacra]

You mean that London or Moscow is not occupied unlike Paris.

That is the key difference why the French surrendered and the British or the Russians not... The Germans cannot win, because they themselves did not know what qualifies as a win. Their original intent was to capture (parts of) Poland. Nothing more.

So they win as long as the war ends up after conquering Poland. From October 1939 they are against a moving goalpost. Like they have no warplan about landing troops in the UK (that is the reason why they came up with the massive yet sloppy Sealion) heck they do not even had a peace plan for France. Singning a peace treaty with France was well within the realms of possibility in 1940-41, but they even fail to do that because they absolutely did not know what to do next.

I don't think the loss of London or Moscow would have left to either country capitulating. I am certain with the case of Moscow, it was half abandoned by the time the Stalin decided to stay.

I think France and the French in general were/are very disunited and certainly did not have the same levels of patriotism as Russia and Britain.

 

[Klausewitz]

It is not about patriotism.
Patriotism just requires a peace offer that allows the enemy to save face.
Ignoring that the Nazi leaderships strategy was a shambles in pretty much any direction and every level and was passed for 'grand strategy' was mostly Hitler's attempts at winning World War 1 the second time around without acknowledging the changes that had happened and/or fleeing into mysticism when all else failed, there were ways to get around the 'patriotism' in both cases.
While Churchill would probably have been willing to fight to the knife just to try and cripple Germany there is ample precedent for very ..ahem... "pragmatic" decision making of the British upper crust when offered things they wanted. Sufficient guarantees and appealing offers could have strengthened certain groups enough to allow Britain to refrain from the war under the guise of having to focus on the colonies (India and the Far East weren't oasis of peace before 1939), etc.
Same goes for Russia.
The Soviets were at best semi-popular with their people. Most of their popularity they gained from the 'It is either us or the Nazis and your death' that the nazis had whipped up for them.
But if there was a viable alternative, a new Russia, not Soviet, not Tzarist, maybe semi-white. that could have worked... in 1941 the Russian Revolution was less than a generation old, the civil war only ended in 1922/23, so arguably there was quite a bit of bad blood and division to be exploited...
If the nazis could refrain from full scale genocide on the Eastern Front that is...
But we are deep in counterfactuals anyways, so yes, i think a sensible, strategically shrewd, pragmatic Nazi Germany would have been able to neutralize both Britain and Russia with the right mix of force of arms and diplomacy.
But the actual leadership could not have won the war even without the atomic bomb because you cannot win a war were you do not know what winning would even look like.

 

[krieger11b]

I don't think the loss of London or Moscow would have left to either country capitulating. I am certain with the case of Moscow, it was half abandoned by the time the Stalin decided to stay.

I think France and the French in general were/are very disunited and certainly did not have the same levels of patriotism as Russia and Britain.

Taking Moscow would have been a major infrastructure blow to the USSR though, it the hub for rail and communications for most of Western Russia. They could have fought on, but it would have been that much harder.

 

[cacra]

Taking Moscow would have been a major infrastructure blow to the USSR though, it the hub for rail and communications for most of Western Russia. They could have fought on, but it would have been that much harder.

True, but is it hard enough to force them to surrender?

I doubt it.