# How did the axis powers last so long in WW2 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 14, 2015, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-axis-powers-last-so-long-in-ww2/709858 "2015-01-14T23:37:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-axis-powers-last-so-long-in-ww2/709858/81 "2015-01-26T00:08:27Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > This post will reveal my lack of knowledge on the Eastern Front, but would there have been any way for Hitler to have gotten to the Soviet Union without directly attacking Poland? > > If someone with a time machine goes back to 1935 and decides to help Germany and Japan, would there be a way? > > Have Hitler work on his “image problem” in the West, have him spend all of his energy painting Communists and the ultimate evil. The Nazis can wait to do their genocide later. > > Conduct secret pacts with France and the UK in which Germany promises to respect Poland territorial integrity. Renegotiate the Versailles treaty rather than unilaterally break it. Don’t remilitarize the Rhineland. > > Transfer German manufacturing and military technologies and concepts to Japan. Train Japanese generals on fighting modern armies. > > Keep Japan out of China by all costs, promising Siberia, or large chunks of Eastern Siberia to them. > > Secretly promise Poland large chunks of land to their east if they cooperate with you. Help train and modernize their armies with German weapons, but don’t increase their manufacturing capabilities. > > Secretly promise people in Ukraine independence if they support you once the fight begins. Same for Belarusians. > > Secretly promise Finland, Lithuania, Latvia and Latvia large chunks of land to their east if they cooperate with you. Help train and modernize their armies with German weapons, and help them increase their manufacturing capabilities. > > Promise parts of Soviet territory to Hungary and Romania if they cooperate with you. Help train and modernize their armies with German weapons, and help them increase their manufacturing capabilities. > > Promise Mussolini German cooperation with North Africa, Yugosolavia and all if they first help fight the USSR. Help train their armies and increase their manufacturing capabilities. Once they are committed in the fight against the Soviets, help stage a coup and put the generals in charge. Mussolini is too much of a wild canon so he’s got to go. > > Manufacture more light tanks for the initial attack. Use German tank units combined with Polish cannon fodder to attack head on while using German troops and tanks for the pincer movements. > Secretly pre-stage German equipment in Finland, Poland and other countries. Then do the massive surprise attack, as well as having Japan simultaneously attack in Siberia. > > With Leningrad so close to the Finish border, you should be able to capture it quickly. > > Learn the damn lessons about logistics and specifically figure out how to use the Soviet rail system to get troops, tanks and supplies close to Moscow as soon as possible. Figure out how to solve the wide track vs. narrow track issue and all the other problems which plagued the Nazis. > > Capture Moscow and strip it of all the manufacturing factories and equipment, keep the lion’s share and distribute some to key allies. > > Then start to wipe out the civilians. A problem with a lot of this is that it would have conflicted with the state capitalism part of Fascist ideology. Both German and Italian policies during the war often worked against military advantage if it would potentially interfere with the profits of German or Italian corporations. No equivalent of Lend-Lease, for example - if an ally wanted German tanks or aircraft they paid hard cash in advance and even then were usually given clapped-out combat survivors rather than new equipment, if they were lucky enough to be allowed to buy at all. If that meant the allied armies couldn’t fight well in combat, well, the Master Race didn’t \*really \*need them, anyway. And forget about licensed production - the Nazi plan was that all post-war industrial production in Europe would be in Germany, and the occupied territories and remaining countries would only serve as resource sources for the massive German economy. They had no desire to encourage independent production by their (temporary) allies that would interfere with this goal. German superiority leading to an inevitable ultimate victory seemed to be an unquestioned assumption in much of their planning. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-axis-powers-last-so-long-in-ww2/709858/82 "2015-01-26T01:39:44Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > That’s how I understand it. I never got why the Waffen SS increased in size so much during the war. Hitler must have been paranoid squared. Well, no, the Waffen SS got bigger because Germany was fighting so many opponents, so they kept recruiting soldiers. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-axis-powers-last-so-long-in-ww2/709858/83 "2015-01-26T01:43:12Z")
> [@Bookkeeper](#): > > Both German and Italian policies during the war often worked against military advantage if it would potentially interfere with the profits of German or Italian corporations. No equivalent of Lend-Lease, for example - if an ally wanted German tanks or aircraft they paid hard cash in advance and even then were usually given clapped-out combat survivors rather than new equipment, if they were lucky enough to be allowed to buy at all. If that meant the allied armies couldn’t fight well in combat, well, the Master Race didn’t \*really \*need them, anyway. You realize, of course, that your second claim contradicts your first. If Hungary, say, wanted to buy top of the line aircraft, would it not have been disadvantageous to the company building those aircraft for Hungary to be forbidden to buy them? ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-axis-powers-last-so-long-in-ww2/709858/84 "2015-01-26T06:09:37Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I think I understand your argument. It’s a shoulda vs coulda. We COULDN’T do what you suggested because it took time. No amount of money or manpower instantly puts a boat in the water or a trained Navy to extend that force. We shoulda prepared for a war but we didn’t. Of this I agree with you. For the umteenth time, I am not suggesting that the US placed ships in the sea which they didn’t have. I have repeatedly stated that the US could have prepared earlier _or_ delayed their sanctions on Japan. I have never suggested that the US write letters to Santa asking for them as Christmas presents. As I pointed out earlier, the US had already began the most expensive peacetime buildup of the naval forces, with the [Two-OceansAct.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Ocean_Navy_Act) > [@](#): > > On June 17, a few days after German troops conquered France, Chief of Naval Operations Harold Stark requested four billion dollars from Congress to increase the size of the American combat fleet by 70% by adding 257 ships amounting to 1,325,000 tons.[4] On June 18, after less than an hour of debate, the House of Representatives by a 316–0 vote authorized $8.55 billion for a naval expansion program, giving emphasis to aircraft. Rep. Vinson, who headed the House Naval Affairs Committee, said its emphasis on carriers did not represent any less commitment to battleships, but “The modern development of aircraft has demonstrated conclusively that the backbone of the Navy today is the aircraft carrier. The carrier, with destroyers, cruisers and submarines grouped around it[,] is the spearhead of all modern naval task forces.”[5] It was enacted on July 19, 1940. > > The Act authorized the procurement of:[1][4] > > ``` > 18 aircraft carriers > 2 Iowa-class battleships > 5 Montana-class battleships > 6 Alaska-class cruisers > 27 cruisers > 115 destroyers > 43 submarines > 15,000 aircraft > The conversion of 100,000 tons of auxiliary ships > $50 million for patrol, escort and other vessels > $150 million for essential equipment and facilities > $65 million for the manufacture of ordnance material or munitions > $35 million for the expansion of facilities > > ``` This act was passed in 1940. Had the US taken the Japanese seriously, which they sort of did, but not really, and had they prioritized their spending, they could have been ready by December of 1941. Of course, this is a “should have” in hindsight, in that if they had do this, the war would have been completely different. I’m not arguing that they should have known better. They were who they were. However, your aruegment that the US could not have been ready for war is absurd. They had the resources to build the ships, aircraft and facilities. They simply didn’t start to act until it was too late. As I have repeated states, that could have been handled either by prioritizing the already authorized spending to get ready quicker or delay the embargoes on oil and raw material. I’m not arguing that this is something they should have known but that it would have been possible had they not underestimated Japanese capabilities. > [@](#): > > The United States wasn’t a superpower at the beginning of WW-II. We were still reeling from WW-I and the Great Depression. Another major war was VERY unpopular as was massive spending on the military. We were waaaaay behind the power curve in every sense of the phrase. That’s absurd and almost completely wrong. The US was not reeling from WWI in 1941. The US had the largest industrial capacity in world, and which was ten times larger than that of Japan. The massive spending had already been committed. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-axis-powers-last-so-long-in-ww2/709858/85 "2015-01-26T15:00:16Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > Cubed. Praetorianized units running in parallel to the regular army were and are the norm in many a paranoid authoritarian regime. Dictators tend to be nervous about regulars and like to hedge their bets. Hitler in particular had pretty good reason to be wary of his military which, his favorites aside, did not shower him with respect. > > In modern times you could cite the dual-track military of Saudi Arabia with its National Guard alongside the army, or the Republican Guards units of the former Iraqi regime or Syria’s former Defense Companies as very similar examples. Not only that - Nazism is perhaps unique in that it was an explicit part of the ideology to directly encourage people within the Nazi hierarchy to complete with each other. To a truly bizzare extent, the Nazis actually believed that such competition - an internal ‘struggle for the fittest’ - would actually result with the best - though what tended to happen is that it resulted in a lot of wasteful duplication and energy spent on infighting. While this sort of ‘divide and rule’ is, as you say, often present in totalitarian regimes, the Nazis took it to a new level - to a great extent, it was a pillar of their organizational ethos. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2015, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-axis-powers-last-so-long-in-ww2/709858/86 "2015-01-27T01:44:04Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > That’s absurd and almost completely wrong. The US was not reeling from WWI in 1941. The US had the largest industrial capacity in world, and which was ten times larger than that of Japan. The massive spending had already been committed. The Great Depression was a worldwide event and it lasted all through the 1930’s. There was nobody to borrow the money from. At the start of the war US soldiers were training in boot camp with brooms and wooden guns. You can suggest all you want. The money wasn’t there and few in the Great Depression wanted a repeat of WW-I. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2015, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-axis-powers-last-so-long-in-ww2/709858/87 "2015-01-27T01:51:17Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Not only that - Nazism is perhaps unique in that it was an explicit part of the ideology to directly encourage people within the Nazi hierarchy to complete with each other. Well, them and the Sith. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2015, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-axis-powers-last-so-long-in-ww2/709858/88 "2015-01-27T03:32:17Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The Great Depression was a worldwide event and it lasted all through the 1930’s. There was nobody to borrow the money from. At the start of the war US soldiers were training in boot camp with brooms and wooden guns. > > You can suggest all you want. The money wasn’t there and few in the Great Depression wanted a repeat of WW-I. Where was the US government going to get the 8.55 billion 1940 dollars (136 billion in 2010 dollars) for the naval expansion? Oh, I know, suddenly they asked everyone to turn in their toothfairy money. That’s got to be the ticket. All snark aside, it doesn’t seem you are aguing in good faith, and I have little patience for absurity. Your world and mine don’t contain enough of the same facts to have a discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2015, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-axis-powers-last-so-long-in-ww2/709858/89 "2015-01-27T13:46:49Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Well, them and the Sith. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![mascaroni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/dc4da7/32.png) [@mascaroni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mascaroni)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2015, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-axis-powers-last-so-long-in-ww2/709858/90 "2015-01-27T18:50:47Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > What on earth are you talking about? Fair enough, my mistake. The Finns were caught between a rock and a hard place in WWII and found themselves having to, if not actually allying with the Axis Powers, needing their support against threats from the Soviet Union, which the Western Allied Powers couldn’t provide due to the alliance with the Soviets. I think I misinterpreted your post as criticism of the Finns. As I said, my mistake. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2015, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-axis-powers-last-so-long-in-ww2/709858/91 "2015-01-27T19:17:51Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The Great Depression was a worldwide event and it lasted all through the 1930’s. There was nobody to borrow the money from. At the start of the war US soldiers were training in boot camp with brooms and wooden guns. > > You can suggest all you want. The money wasn’t there and few in the Great Depression wanted a repeat of WW-I. > [@TokyoBayer](#): > > Where was the US government going to get the 8.55 billion 1940 dollars (136 billion in 2010 dollars) for the naval expansion? > > Oh, I know, suddenly they asked everyone to turn in their toothfairy money. That’s got to be the ticket. > > All snark aside, it doesn’t seem you are aguing in good faith, and I have little patience for absurity. Your world and mine don’t contain enough of the same facts to have a discussion. I don’t even know who to argue against here. I just want to say that where war is concerned, all concerns about the economic policy and spending tax revenues, etc., fly right out the window. We’ve seen it in our lifetimes – deficits, borrowing, running the money presses 24/7, whatever it takes, if it’s determined enough, the US government can and will buy all the weapons that industry can provide. And pay for new factories to produce more, if necessary. Providing people to fill out an army may be an issue. Acquiring enough weapons within some arbitrary timeline may be an issue. Having the money to do it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2015, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-axis-powers-last-so-long-in-ww2/709858/92 "2015-01-28T00:30:21Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > Where was the US government going to get the 8.55 billion 1940 dollars (136 billion in 2010 dollars) for the naval expansion? > > Oh, I know, suddenly they asked everyone to turn in their toothfairy money. That’s got to be the ticket. That’s pretty much exactly what they did. [From Wik](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_bond)i: Over the course of the war 85 million Americans purchased bonds totalling approximately $185 billion. I seriously don’t know how you could not be aware of this. It was a[massive effort.](https://www.google.com/search?q=war+bond+posters&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=_SbIVOq1EIGxyASkvoLADw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAg&biw=1138&bih=508) > [@TokyoBayer](#): > > All snark aside, it doesn’t seem you are aguing in good faith, and I have little patience for absurity. Your world and mine don’t contain enough of the same facts to have a discussion. I’ve been nice up to this point but your knowledge of history is seriously lacking. The US was a borderline [isolationist nation after WW-I](https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/american-isolationism). Congress rejected joining the League of Nations. As for going to war there simply was no political drive to risk lives and spend money coming out of the Great Depression. Your fantasy of what should have occured isn’t rooted in the reality of the situation. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2015, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-axis-powers-last-so-long-in-ww2/709858/93 "2015-01-31T06:43:35Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > This post will reveal my lack of knowledge on the Eastern Front, but would there have been any way for Hitler to have gotten to the Soviet Union without directly attacking Poland? > > If someone with a time machine goes back to 1935 and decides to help Germany and Japan, would there be a way? > [@RickJay](#): > > No. There is no practical way to invade in the numbers needed without launching much of the attack from Poland. > Japan wasn’t bad at building things. Where they put their efforts, their weapons were top notch; look at how the Zero tore Allied planes to shreds earlier in the war. Japan simply did not have the resources to build weapons in the quantity AND quality to match the Allies, and had internal political rifts of the likes that no external advice was going to fix. > [@lisiate](#): > > Take a look at a map of [Europe in 1939](http://adrianchapman.com/maps/europe_1939aug_800x720.jpg) there’s no convenient way for Germany to attack the USSR other than through Poland. Japan was already in China (specifically [Manchuria](http://www.classzone.com/cz/books/ms_wh_survey/resources/images/chapter_maps/wh21_aggressionasia.jpg)) before the Nazi’s came to power as well. > > It would take a diplomatic genius to make all the alliances you’ve suggested (although to give Ribbentrop credit negotiating a non-aggression pact with the Soviets was a pretty sharp move). > > More light tanks wouldn’t be particularly helpful, you’d just bounce even more ammo off the USSR’s better tanks [(KV-1s and T-34s)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_encounter_of_Soviet_T-34_and_KV_tanks). The enormous number of soviet light tanks (BT series and over [10,000 T-26s](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-26)) in 1941 didn’t help them very much in our timeline. > > Pre-staging vast amounts of military equipment in other countries is sort of antithetical to conducting a surprise attack. > > Leningrad was invested within 3 months of the launch of Barbarossa, yet despite the enormous losses inflicted on the Red Army was never captured. It’s hard to see how an alternate strategy could take it quickly while at the same time focusing on Moscow. > > The gauge issue either requires massive infrastructure work to alter tracks or a huge conversion of rolling stock to be able to use wider track - either way it’s a big problem with no obvious solution. > > All in all the invasion of the Soviet Union was about as successful as it could possibly be in our timeline, and still wasn’t enough to be complete. > [@Bookkeeper](#): > > A problem with a lot of this is that it would have conflicted with the state capitalism part of Fascist ideology. Both German and Italian policies during the war often worked against military advantage if it would potentially interfere with the profits of German or Italian corporations. No equivalent of Lend-Lease, for example - if an ally wanted German tanks or aircraft they paid hard cash in advance and even then were usually given clapped-out combat survivors rather than new equipment, if they were lucky enough to be allowed to buy at all. If that meant the allied armies couldn’t fight well in combat, well, the Master Race didn’t \*really \*need them, anyway. > > And forget about licensed production - the Nazi plan was that all post-war industrial production in Europe would be in Germany, and the occupied territories and remaining countries would only serve as resource sources for the massive German economy. They had no desire to encourage independent production by their (temporary) allies that would interfere with this goal. German superiority leading to an inevitable ultimate victory seemed to be an unquestioned assumption in much of their planning. My apologies for the belated response. First, I’ve been really busy and didn’t get a chance. Second, and more importantly, I placed the alt-history in the wrong thread. It should have gone over into the [Axis Strategy Victory Scenario in WWII Possible?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=746139) thread. I’ve copied my post and these replies there. ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2015, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-axis-powers-last-so-long-in-ww2/709858/94 "2015-02-04T13:11:41Z")
How did Japan last so long in the war once US oil supplies were cut off? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-axis-powers-last-so-long-in-ww2/709858.md?page=4)