The Axis? Doomed from the outset?

Could the Axis powers have consolidated their lightning victories of 1939-42 in such a way as to achieve ultimate victory? Military historians have long debated the strategic decisions that might have tipped the war in Hitler’s and Hirohito’s way. Leaving aside unlikely scenarios like a successful German invasion of Britain in 1940, a cancellation of Operation Barbarossa or a Japanese decision to attack the Soviet Union rather then the United States, four more or less plausible possibilities have been suggested:

  1. Hitler might have accepted his military leaders’ advice (notably that of Admiral Raeder) and focused his attention on winning the war in the Mediterranean in 1941, before invading the Soviet Union. He might, fir example, have struck across the Eastern Mediterranean to Cyprus, Lebanon, and Syria; or through Turkey (violating her neutrality) towards the Caucacus; or across Egypt to Suez and beyond. Even as it was, the British positions in Malta and Egypt were acutely vulnerable . Rommel might well have been able to drive the British out of Egypt if he had been sent the twenty-nine German divisions that were sitting more or less idle in Western Europe.

  2. Alternatively, Hitler might have diverted more resources into winning the battle of the Atlantic in 1942. Certainly, the German submarines were inflicting severe losses on Allied shipping throughout 1942 and into the spring of 1943.

  3. Hitler might have waged his war against the Soviet Union more intelligently. Again, he might have listened to the experts (Halder and Guderian among them), who advised him to concentrate German efforts on capturing Moscow rather than diverting Field Marshal Gerd Von Rundstedt’s Army Group southward toward Kiev. In a similar vein, might not have squandered his 6th Army so profligately at Stalingrad; Alan Brooke’s fear was that Paules might instead conquer the Caucasus, opening the way to the Caspian sea and the Persian Gulf oilfields.

  4. The Japanese could have waged a different war against the Western powers, attacking Ceylon rather then Port Moresby and Midway in 1942 in order to challenge British dominance of the Indian ocean. They might also have diverted troops away from China and Manchuria- where 56 per cent of their overseas forces were still stationed at the end of the war- to reinforce their line of defense in the Pacific.

The difficulty with all these counterfactuals- aside from their postulating a Hitler who was not as deaf to expert military advice as the real Hitler was- is that virtually none of them suggests a way in which the Axis powers could have overcome the overwhelming economic odds against them once they had taken on simultaneously the British Empire, the United States and the Soviet Union.

To be sure, the blitzkrieg campaigns of 1939-42 narrowed the economic gap between the Axis and Allies. The Germans very succesfully sucked resources out of occupied Western Europe; at their in 1943 unrequited transfers from France amounted to 8 per cent of German gross national product, equivalent to a third of pre-war French national income. Germany qll but monopolized the exports of the West European countries she occupied. The former Czechoslovakia, to, was substantial net contributor to the German war effort. So deep did Operation Barbarbossa and subsequent offensives penetrate that they captured more than half of Soviet industrial capacity. More over, the Germans were able to treat their empire as a bottomless reservoir of cheap labor. Foreign workers accounted for a fifth of active civilian labor force by 1943. After being put in charge of German armaments production, Albert Speer galvanized the Reich’s economy, almost trebling weapons output between 1941 and 1944 by imposing standardization on the manufactures and achieving startling improvements in productivity. The Japanese also performes feat of economic mobilization, increasing aircraft production by a factor of five and a half between 1941 and 1944.

Yet it was nowhere near enough. The Big Three had vastly superior material resources. In 1940, when Germany and Italy had faced Britian and France, the latter combination’s total economic output had been roughly two-thirds that of the other side;s. The defeat of France and Poland lengthened the odds against Britain, but the German invasion of the Soviet Union restored economic balance. With the entry of the United States into the war, the scales tipped the other way; indeed, they all toppled over. Combined Allied GDP was twice that of the principal Axis powers and their dependencies in 1942. It was roughly three times in 1943, and the ratio continued to rise as the war went on, largely as a result of the rapid growth of the US economy. Between 1942 and 1944 American military spending was nearly twice that of the Germany and Japan combined. It is difficult to see how different strategic decisions could have prevented this disastrous lengthening of economic odds against Axis victory. So much increment in Allied production simply lay beyond the reach of Axis arms, in the United States and beyond the Urals. Moreover, the additional oilfields that might have come within Hitler’s reach had he fought the war differently were still far too modest in their output to have narrowed significantly the petroleum gap between the two sides.

It is important also to bear in mind that Axis powers were fighting not only against the British,Russians and Americans; they were fighting against the combined forces of the British, Russian and American empires as well. The total numbers of men fielded by various parts of the British Empire were immense. All told, the United Kingdom itself mobolized just under six million men and women. But an additional 5.1 million came from India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Victories like El Alamein and even more so Imphal were victories for imperial forces as much as for British forces; the colonial commitment to the Empire proved every bit as strong as in the First World War. Two and a half million Indians joined the British Indian Army. The Red Army was also much more than just a Russian army. In January 1944 Russians accounted for 58 per cent of the 200 infantry divisions from which record were available, but Ukrainians accounted for 22 per cent, an order of magnitude more than fought on the German side. Half the soldiers of the Soviet 62nd Army at Stalingrad were not Russians. The American army, too, was ethhnically diverse. Although they were kept in segregated units, African-Americans accounted for 11 per cent of the total US forces mobilized and fought in all major campaigns Operation Torch on wards. Two of the six serviceman who Raised the stars and stripes on Iwo Jima were of foregion origan; one was Pima Indian. A man once said"America is the international country… Our Army had Yugoslavs and Frenchmen and Austrians, and Czechs and Norwegians in it, and everywhere our Army goes in Europe, a man can turn to the private beside him and say:Hey, Mac, what’s this furriner saying?’… And Mac will be able to translate. This is where we are lucky. No other country has such a fund of men who speak the languages of the lands we must invade… Just as truly Europe once invaded us, with wave after wave of immigrants, now we are invading Europe, with wave after wave of sons of immigrants.".

Japan’s position might have been sustainable had it not attacked Pearl Harbor and the Philippines, thus avoiding bringing America into the war, and if it had limited its advance to Malaya and the NEI which gave it all the resources it needed and was within its shipping and military capacity to exploit and defend.

The problem with this scenario is that the Philippines stood astride the LOC between Japan and its conquests, with the risk that the Americans might prevent it exploiting its conquests. So the Philippines had to be taken, which necessitated neutralising the USN’s predictable response by attacking Pearl.

Attacking Ceylon would have been an unnecessary waste of resources and lengthening of LOC, although in it was seriously considered, because the RN in the Indian Ocean posed little threat to Japan’s conquests in Malaya and the NEI, not least because the RN could not adequately supply that modest fleet when higher priority was given to the RN deployed against Germany and Italy closer to home.

Had Japan left America out of the war, the prospect of Axis success improves considerably. The prospect might improve a little more if Japan uses forces and resources that were actually deployed unprofitably east of the NEI to attack the Soviets on the Manchurian border, which might divert forces arrayed against the Germans or at least cause the Soviets to hold forces in reserve against the need to deploy them against Japan rather than use them against the Germans. This assumes that the considerable Soviet forces already on the border do not defeat Japan as they had a couple of years earlier.

Japan could not afford to divert forces from Manchuria, partly for purely military reasons but also because China was too valuable to it to risk losing while trying to gain relatively inconsequential islands in the Pacific.

I was just stating a a opinion given by historians.

One thing that would have changed the World War II fundamentally: Hitler managing to seize the entire Soviet Union (after that Nazi Germany would have had about the same amount of natural resources as the United States).

This could have been done with one change:
In 1940 Germany produced about 1800 tanks, in 1944 about 19000 tanks. So basically Hitler attacked the Soviet Union with 10% of the strenght he could have used. Just double the military production and the strike against Soviet Union could have (most likely) been crushing (considering that even Hitler’s “weak mini-attack” annihilated the entire Red Army located in the western part of the Soviet Union).

_

That wasn’t just about available resources though. Germany did not initiate and transition to a full war economy until 1942 --much too late…

True they were ready for lighting war but not a siege war.

Kinda shows that the High Command never intended to get into another World War. They expected quick victories and never intended to fight a long war. To think that the scientific geniuses that would create and built King Tigers, V1/V2s, Jets, etc were driving trucks and fighting in the trenches appears absurd right now.

Do you think a focus on scientific research right from the outset 1939 could have turned things around for Germany as well? Imagine if they had 3 more years - and most importantly the higher availability of resources at the beginning - to perfect their weaponry.

I wonder if the Germans would have been better served by actually providing their rear echelon logistical troops with trucks instead of horses and carts…and ones not captured from the French. Remember, the Tiger was on the drawing board as a “heavy breakthrough tank” as early as 1937 I think (I could be wrong), but was only implemented after the shock of the T-34, unlike the German tanks, and easily massed produced marvel of simplicity that worked very well if it is a little overrated in some aspects. Much of the German “wonder weapons” were as much a response to their industrial deficiencies and more serviceable Allied weaponry as they were part of any (very disorganized) plan…

The Germans should have finished off France and England before attacking the Soviet Union.

First - beat the French
Second - Knock the English out of north Africa and head for the middle east
Third - Let your allies the Japanese tear up the British Empire from India to Singapore to Australia
Fourth - Starve the English into submission with U-Boats
Fifth- At least delay the entry of the United States into the war - when Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, don’t declare war on the United States
Sixth - Consolidate your holdings, then go after the Soviet Union with everything you’ve got, and smash them flat
Seventh- When the United States has finished wiping the floor with Japan, sign a treaty with the U.S.A. and build up your economy and technology
Eighth- Around 1965 or so, go after the U.S.A.

And you think that would’ve worked?
The problem is that the Soviet Union would have invaded Germany as soon as it turned it’s back. You don’t really believe that two Dictators with as radically different perspectives would have shared a border for long without attacking each other?
And Stalin wouldn’t have let Germany defeat England, as this would have allowed Hitler to concentrate all its forces on Russia - which he would have wanted to avoid at all costs.

It would be far cheaper in terms of troops and materiel to maintain a defensive posture against Stalin as long as possible. The longer the Reich avoided a two front war the better their chances would be, make Stalin make the first offensive move and tear him up in Poland, rather than letting him tear up the German armies in Russia

When you consider Stalin’s reaction even after Germany invaded Russia, together with Russo-German pact that Stalin so eagerly signed, I don’t think he would have invaded Germany at all regardless of what Germany achieved in the West. Remember there was no direct route into Germany so Hitler would have had time to meet any invation long before it got to Germany. I agree Hitler should have finished the job in the West first, at the same time he should have and could have convinced Japan to lay off the Pacific rim for awhile and concentrate fully on securing China.

One very important factor to consider here is the fact that Hitler never really wanted war with Britain and also never wanted to hurt the British Empire, it was essentially forced on him after he miscalculated the British response to the invasion of Poland. He also never actually intended to implement invasion plans for Britain either.

Quite right and if he didn’t invade Poland (only needed that for access to Russia) he could have pitched his entire military strength against the West.

Jeez guys, reading my post again it comes across (incorrectly) that I actually wished the Nazis won the war. I apologise for that, it’s simply that I sometimes get caught up in the strategy and forget about the politics for a few moments.

When the German army invaded Russia,the Russian army was in a middle of re-organisation(equipment and command structure),hence the very good performance of the German forces.
In “When titans clashed”,Glantz reckons that Germany would have probably lost if they would have attacked earlier (end thirties) as the Russian army was better equipped (at the time compared to Germany)with fully motorised and armoured brigades(disbanded later on by Stalin) and still embraced the Deep operation military doctrine.
By 1941 ,Russian (and Stalin) were only starting to rectify their mistakes(purges notably) by the lessons learned in the winter war against Finland and the victory in Japan.New planes and tanks were already scheduled to replace their obsolete equipment and by 1942 ,the Russian army would have been far harder to beat that the one in June 1941.
So basically Germany did strike at the best time,too early and it was too weak ,any delays would have been catastrophic.

There are assumptions implicit in a number of posts that Japan’s war would still develop along the same lines if Germany won in Europe and that Japan and Germany would co-operate for the duration of the war and afterwards.

These assumptions ignore the fact that the relationship between Germany and Japan was strained even before Pearl Harbor, notably by the signing of the German Soviet Non-Aggression Pact in 1939 while the Soviets were crushing the Japanese on the Manchurian border, which Japan regarded as a betrayal by Germany, and later by Germany attacking Russia without consulting Japan.

Consequently, Japan did not co-ordinate its war with Germany but pursued its own objectives.

It is feasible that Germany and Japan might have co-operated to the extent necessary to exploit their respective gains and join up in or west of India.

It is also feasible that their relationship might have fractured completely, which then leaves the question of how far east Germany goes in Russia and whether it then faces the Japanese as a hostile force, or whether they carve up Russia with Japan getting Siberia as it considered taking before it decided to go south.

Without going into detailed speculation about how it might happen, a fractured relationship between Germany and Japan could even see Germany and America combining against Japan as a common enemy for their own purposes, which in suitable circumstances is no more improbable than the marriage of convenience which actually occurred between Britain / America and the USSR to deal with their common enemy.

I think a more likely scenario if Japan and Germany’s relationship soured, would be that Russia and America would have teamed up to stop Japanese aggression in both China and the Pacific rim. The main point being nobody would have given the war raging in the West a second glance.

My speculation was based on the assumption that Germany had already defeated or come to terms with Britain and had defeated, or would defeat, the Soviets. This leaves America to fight Japan on its own, which after Pearl Harbor it undoubtedly will, without being involved in anything across the Atlantic.

However, with Germany in control of Europe and Britain either conquered or out of the war on peace terms, America’s trade and strategic interests now focus on accommodating the reality of Germany’s domination of Europe while avenging Pearl Harbor.

Given the virulent anti-communism which infected America’s commercial and political elements until they needed to do a deal with the devil to utilise the USSR to defeat their common enemy (before resuming their normal hostility post-war), and given the willingness of significant American interests to trade with Germany up to and after Germany declared war on the US following Pearl Harbor, Germany was a more natural ally for America than the USSR against Japan.

Agreed if the war in the West was over. But given Hitlers attitude towards Russia, I think America and Japan would bave been left to it and Hitler would have gone after Russia.