It’s fun to speculate, but the short answer is “no”. The Allies made some pretty big blunders too, the difference being that their industrial and manpower base were so huge that they could afford those mistakes - the Axis could afford 0 mistakes, and probably still couldn’t have won.
Ill-advised it may have been, but attacking the USSR was Hitler’s entire purpose in the war. Everything else prior was more or less clearing the decks for that.
America not participating just means the Russians beat Germany on their own, maybe a year later. Italy collapses accordingly, and Japan never goes to war. No more Axis.
Trivial tactical stuff like this makes no difference to the overall result. The Germans were already beaten before Overlord. They were already beaten before Husky (Sicily) in 1943. Defeat was close to inevitable from 22 July 1941.
The Italian campaign was a distraction for both sides, and on balance probably made no appreciable difference to the timing of Germany’s defeat.
By Pearl Harbor the Germans had already been repulsed from Moscow and Leningrad, and what minuscule chance they’d had to defeat Russia was already gone.
I have played this out, and the Axis have a chance if they get really lucky, the Russians are really stupid and/or the Axis actually acts like real allies and Japan attacks Russia from the rear.
With either the US or the USSR in the war, Germany couldn’t ever win. Both had too great a superiority of population and resources. As long as they were determined to win, they would have ground Germany down over the long haul.
However, one possible way Germany could have held on to most of their conquests in Europe, at least for a while, is the “no Hitler” scenario. If Hitler had died or been assassinated early in the war, before the invasion of Russia, a more pragmatic and less ideological leadership - Goring perhaps - might have attempted to consolidate their gains before trying further expansion. Although Germany wasn’t close to an A-bomb by 1945, given more time they might have succeeded. And without the war to spur the US into the Manhattan project, they might have beat the US to it.
In the Pacific the US might have gone to war even without Pearl Harbor. But without that motivation, the US might not have been committed enough to force them out of most of their conquests.
Right. If the new Nazis had offered up everything that wasnt fairly recently part of Germany back (keeping the Rhineland, Sudatenland, etc) it might have been a sell.
I don’t necessarily disagree with any of this, but I wonder if there would have been the will on the Allies side if Russia wasn’t involved. If that is the case, then you basically have a fait acomplit on the continent. Germany has most of it, and there is no fighting going on. Making a landing without the Russian front as a distraction is very, very hard, and will take a lot of blood. I think it is possible, though maybe not probable, that Germany can just hang on to it long enough that no one has the will to take it from them, even if they can.
Similarly, when talking about the A-bomb, I don’t know if the US uses it if there isn’t any real fighting going on. Maybe they do, I am far from an expert on that part of the war, but dropping an A-bomb on a city when you haven’t had any real casualties is much different than doing it when you are being bled with every single island you take.
Italy’s big problem was they peaked too early. Mussolini took power in 1922 and began a major military program. The Italian government invested a significant portion of the national budget on developing new weapons, building up its military arsenal, and recruiting and training new soldiers. Around 1929, Italy was one of the strongest military powers in Europe.
The problem was that there was no war in 1929. Hitler took power in 1932 and began rebuilding the German military through the thirties. France, the UK, and the Soviet Union all saw this and began building up their militaries as well. Italy’s military meanwhile just got older. By 1939, every other European power had a new military that had been built up in the last five years or so. Italy had a military that was based around fifteen year old technology.
Japan and the US were coming closer and closer to war. Had the Japanese not hit Pearl Harbor, the US fleet would have been committed earlier into fighting sooner. I think it would have gotten there no matter what. And once they’re shooting at each other, things have a tendency to escalate.
If you posit a “No Hitler, no Russian invasion, no Pearl Harbor” scenario, then the US most likely doesn’t even get involved, or if it does it isn’t motivated enough to commit enough to dislodge Germany or Japan from most of their conquests.
A Cold War between the US and the Axis ensues for the next 45 years, when a new young Fuhrer announces a new era of openness and political reform. Protests spread in the captive nations and the Reich no longer has the will to put them down. The Nazi Empire swiftly unravels and a new era begins.
Perhaps, but say Japan doesn’t try to take the Philippines or any other US possessions. It just limits itself to gobbling up China and the colonies of the European countries conquered by Germany. How much effort would the US have put into trying to win back the colonies of other countries?
Given the state of the “We wont be fooled again” non-interventionism of the majority of US voters- the USA would open it’s pocketbooks to some extent. That’s about it.
I don’t know about that. German industry quite successfully decentralized in response to Allied bombing campaigns, to the point that industrial production didn’t actually fall until actual German land started being captured. The greater significance of the campaign was that it drew out the Luftwaffe, destroying planes and killing experienced pilots. Perhaps atomic bombing would have been more effective, but the conventional bombing campaign was quite devastating and yet had little effect on industry.
One big reason was the original blunder of using antisemitism and to prosecute people with liberal ideals as the official policy, by 1939 most European nuclear scientists were refugees from Fascism and had gone to work for the allies.
It is true that Einstein did not do work for the nuclear bomb, but his letter to Roosevelt was pointed out as one of the items that convinced the USA of not letting that chance to become a reality. One of the most important refugees was Enrico Fermi, he was not a Jew but his wife was, and thanks to the fascists in Italy becoming more antisemitic like their northern axis partner, he came to the USA and the rest was history.
The invasion of Russia was doomed by the Nazis’ insane policy of treating all the Russians as untermenschen. Many peoples of the Soviet Union would have welcomed them as liberators and enthusiastically joined in the battle against Stalin otherwise. It’s certainly feasible that such a policy would have led to a friendly government ruling Russia and a good chance of fighting the remaining Allies to a stalemate. (I think victory would have been out of the question, the US was just too strong).
Fortunately there was zero chance that Hitler, crazed ideologue that he was, would have adopted such a rational policy.
A scenario that isn’t often raised is: what if Hitler had stuck to fighting his real enemy, the Soviet Union?
Germans (since the formation of “Germany” as a nation) had one idea when it came to war: knock the western allies (France and the UK, mainly) out of the battle before turning around to pillage the Russian Empire / the USSR. That was the Kaiser’s strategy in WW1, it was Hitler’s in WW2.
But what if Hitler had done his best to placate France / the UK and assured them that his real enemy was Stalin? Which, besides anything else, was actually true.
Now, the French/British alliance had guaranteed Poland’s safety, which is pretty inconvenient if you’re Germany and you want to attack the USSR. But let’s handwave a situation whereby Nazi Germany could attack the USSR without going through anything the French/Brits cared too much about. Would the situation of Nazis clobbering Bolsheviks really drag the west into what would unquestionably be a long a bloody war?
I can imagine a wait-and-see strategy, possibly even the classic “let my enemies destroy each other and then sail in to mop up the tattered survivors”.
Hitlers attack on the West was quickly victorious and gained him a lot. Other than the Battle Of Britian, the net increase was large and without those factories etc, i dont think the German army would have been up to it.
It is true that German war production was actually on the increase. But this ignores a few key facts:
-Germany had almost no reserves of aviation fuel-all those fighter planes were worthless without gasoline. After the loss of Rumanian oilfields, the Germans had to rely on synthetic fuel-which was expensive to produce and of limited capacity.
-Germany was running out of trained pilots and experienced soldiers. So many of the best Luftwaffe pilots had been killed in Russia, that rookie pilots (often with only a few hours flying experience) were pressed into combat-these green pilots were fodder for experienced allied pilots.
-the so-called “wonder weapons” (V-1 and V-2 missiles) were produced at tremendous cost (using slave labor); neither weapon was worth the expense of production-most V-2s blew up on the launch pad or went off course.
The allied air attacks were shutting down the German transit system-you cold make tanks, but you couldn’t move them from the factories. In any case, there were not enough trained soldiers to man them-16 year old “Hitlerjugend” were no match for allied veterans.
