Axis' last chance.

I know WW2 has been done to death here, but I'm doing it again. What, in your professional opinion, was the Axis' last and/or best chance to win the war? And I mean the point after which the Allies' long road to final victory began.

Cue the "invasion of Poland Sept. 1st 1939" replies.

Depends on how you define "win" I assume you mean Axis power survival with some form of compromise peace.
For Japan, well Pearl Harbor took care of that. The United States was at so enraged by the circumstances of the attack that any peace in the least bit favorable to Japan would not be accepted by the United States

For Germany, hmmm I would say after the Battle of Kursk, as at point Stalin decided on the Red Army conquering Germany. A negotiated peace probably would not have been enough for him.
 

Baskilisk

Banned
There's no saving Japan after Pearl harbor.
Germany on the other hand had a pretty plausible shot at sticking around. Say Hitler launches Barbarossa in the spring of 1943 instead of fall, without redeploying to make sure Yugoslavia and Greece were secure. That gives Hitler plenty of time to overwhelm Russia before winter sets in, although since Stalin was even les convinced of Hitler's treachery then, Russian defenses would be farther inland in more defensible positions, instead of on the border, awaiting invasion. It's unlikely Russia would have been completely wiped out, and all Hitler really cared about in the immediate future was the area west of the Urals. So Russia may have lived on out of sheer compromise with the very busy Nazis, but definitaley in a diminished form, certainly without Ukraine and the oil-producing south.
Of course, it helps drastically if Hitler doesn't declare war on the US for no strategic reason (after Pearl Harbor) other than he'll be fighting us eventually.
With the US soley focused on the war on Japan and all, that has huge repurcussions on the western front. Without the US to take some pressure off Britain, the Soviets would be in even worse shape in that they aren't getting even meager supplies from the Allies (need them for themselves even more!) and Russia is utterly isolated. The American public is still vastly isolationist, and after a two year war with Japan, they aren't going to be willing to jump into another one with an even stronger foe. Similarly, even MacArthur wasn't for Operation Unthinkable in OTL. The fact that Hitler didn't bring the war to America made America's real enemy (Japan) completely seperate from the potential enemy. Basically Americans will see one world war as good enough, and retire to fight another day.:rolleyes:
So with no D-Day, and some sort of German victory in the east, Germany pushes Britain and the Commonwealth out of North Africa, and the US probably won't intervene directly until either an invasion of Britain (still highly impractical) seems imminent, or the Germans continue the push towards the Middle East, controlling a vast supply of oil. Especially if there is a more war-weary US (Japan may have seized Vladivostok and substantial oil supplies in Siberia after Russia's collapse, like they did with France in Indochina, letting them stick around longer), American might not even go to war with Germany until they invade India and it looks as though they might conquer the whole world. All this is highly unlikely, because Truman (and even more so Roosevelt) would know better to delare war on Germany because they'd be the enemy in the long run. So to make it work you need a isolationist president, popular with the people and can override congress. Either by the president's death or a suprise election, Roosevelt's successor will focus on Japan and the Great Depression. But any president would know that something like the Cold War would be brought on with Germany, except the Nazi were smarter, more industrialized, and crazier than the Soviets ever could have been.
So what's the Axis' best shot? Japan had no shot. So what I've come up with to make Germany happen (at least for a while, they can't keep up with the Allies in the long run).
-Earlier Barbarossa. Italian troops pull out of Africa and lay claim to "Dalmatia". Italy gets invaded later, no big deal, not a serious threat to Germany anyhow (Peninsula campaigns are never fun).
-Even though this "no winter" Barbarossa is about as big of a gamble as the one in OTL, it ultimately leads to a German "victory" in the east, albeit immense military casualities, both sides. Russian rump state formed, a few miles west of Moscow's remains is the western border, or alternatively just over the Urals.
-Hitler doesn't declare war on the USA. Of course embargoes will intensify until the fighting begins.
-War weary US. Nobody wants a world war with Germany after an attritous war with Japan. Just ask Russia.
And that's pretty much it.
Pretty plausible, eh? Although that still is full of holes...which I may correct later.:D Feel free to poke more.
Alternatively, Hitler doesn't dismiss his nuclear bomb research as 'too ambitious' and gets the bomb sometime before 1944. London, Moscow, both the Dictator'grads and many others get decimated and eventually the Amerikabomber shoots down eastern seaboard cities. America retaliates by devastating Central Europe with bombs, and everyone dies. But I don't like that scenario as much. :(
 

Baskilisk

Banned
Which is less insane a course ? Attacking France and picking up a war with it and Britain which you have very limited chances to win decisively by the time you have to open the war with the USSR (which is rearming at a breakneck speed, too, so you can't delay too much), so dooming yourself to a two-front war by the start. Total defeat of France was surely not a given thing, several butterflies played to the Germans' advantage). Or sticking to your original plan for an Eastern expansion, since the Western powers have consistently shown they are not going to pick a casus belli over your gains in Central and Eastern Europe, have a mostly pacifist public opinion, and would have serious difficulty politically justifying attacking you without a clear casus belli while you are busy in your anti-Communist crusade.
True, but French industry was vital to the German war effort. Germany would be SOL invading Russia by itself at the time without the military-industrial complex of Northern France in addition to Rhineland.
 
-Earlier Barbarossa.

As in, when. Please keep in mind there are some three thousand threads out there referring to this, you might wish to read them before answering.

-War weary US. Nobody wants a world war with Germany after an attritous war with Japan. Just ask Russia.

Yes, let's ask the Soviet Union. They had had an "attritous" war with Germany, incalculably more "attritous" than anything the USA would do. And - did they want a war with Japan after that? Well yes.

And that's pretty much it.
Pretty plausible, eh?

No.

Alternatively, Hitler doesn't dismiss his nuclear bomb research as 'too ambitious' and gets the bomb sometime before 1944. London, Moscow, both the Dictator'grads and many others get decimated and eventually the Amerikabomber shoots down eastern seaboard cities. America retaliates by devastating Central Europe with bombs, and everyone dies. But I don't like that scenario as much. :(

Maybe because it's impossible? You should read something about the requirements, in terms of power and raw materials, for the Germans putting together _one_ small-yield nuclear device, let alone four or "many" more.
 
Hello together!

Although WW2 is not my favourite subject, since it is one of the most often discussed topics here, I read up on it.

First of all I think that an Axis victory is unlikely and probably needs multiple PoDs.

A very important requirement would be to stop the USA from entering the war on the side of the Allies. This is not that easy to accomplish.

(1) Obviously the declaration of war in Dec. 1941 has to be avoided by Germany. There was of course no need for that, diplomatic or otherwise, since Japan did not declare war on the USSR either. A bold move could have been to openly condemn the attacks and declare war on Japan, although co-belligerence is no guarantee for non-aggression.

(2) As it was German uboats were attacking Amercian ships, which gives the USA a natural casus belli. Stopping that would give the British much more supplies, but would help a grat deal in avoiding annoying the USA.

(3) To get out of this dilemma, Germany would need a peace settlement with Britain. And this is a huge challenge. No way for sealion to succeed, Britain must be defeated otherwise. That can only be done in the colonies, so an early Mediterranean strategy would have to be implemented. This has a slight chance of succeeding if Germany and Italy had gone that road together right after the fall of France. Of course, there are the logistical difficulties to cope with.

- Getting Malta in these early stages of a Med engagement would have been helpful and possible, but would not have eleminated all of the logistical problems.

- Getting Gibraltar seems to be a good idea, too, but this needs Franco joining the Axis. Contrary to popular believe I found at least one rather recent academic publication, stating that Franco was very eager to join the Axis right after the fall of France. If it was not for some irrational German demands (naval basis on the Canaries and Gibraltar, some other colonial possessions, no adequate compensation for Spain) Franco very well might have entered on the side of the Axis. While Spain in the war could have gained the Axis access to Gibraltar, it would also mean a much larger deficit in military and food supplies and a new long strip of coast to be protected from invasion. There would also have been more internal tensions between Italy and Spain and the pseudo-allied Vichy-France: not an easy diplomatic task to balance these interests.

- Getting Cyprus could have helped also, but I have no clue on the military setup there, so no comments on the probability of conquering this island.

- A then combined drive of German and Italian forces to Suez right away from the beginning of an Afrcian campaign could have succeeded, especially since with Tobruk another harbour and shorter supplylines would be available. Of course, there is always the shortage of lorries. This will also meet some diplomatic difficulties. Mussolini did not want German help in the first place. Furthermore the Italian weakness was not that obvious, so suggestions for combined operations may come too late to avoid the initial disaster of Grazziani's offensive.

- Last but not least there must be a German peace offer, which Britain can accept: That means as little territorial losses for the UK as possible. Furthermore the UK would want intact France and Benelux states. There may be wiggle room there to get some (rigged) referenda in the Benelux to annex Luxemburg and some Belgian and Dutch territory, perhaps splitting the remains between France (as compensation for some territory going to Italy and Germany) and a satellite Flanders. This peace offer is difficult to support within the Axis (Spain and Italy may want their share) and difficult to support in Germany itself.

- Some other things that would help (but I would not consider as elemental for a victory):
* Supporting the insurgencies in British territory, especially in Iraq and Palestine.
* No Battle of Britain for a stronger Luftwaffe. With no British civilian casualties German peace offers may gain stronger popularity.
* The capture of the British Expeditionary Forces in Dunkirk: Not because Britain needed them or their equipment to fight the war (most of the equipment was actually left in France in OTL), but a failed Dynamo would have a strong negative impact on British morale. These PoW can also be used as an barter object in peace negotiations.
* Have Wever survive his accident and perhaps even give him the command instead of Göhring. This could have resulted in a much better balanced Luftwaffe which would include strategic bombers.
* Have another person as Primeminister in Britain (perhaps Halifax), who may be more open for German peace offers.
* No (as in really not any kind of) antisemitism in Germany.

(4) Of course this leads to other difficulties concerning the war against the USSR. There is a strong possibility that the invasion cannot start as scheduled, but will be delayed until 1942. This leaves room for a stronger Soviet buildup. Even if not for that, it will be not a cakewalk to defeat the USSR.

(5) Looking at this huge amount of different decisions to make (although one or other could be connected) this needs another leadership in Germany or at least a kind of changed personality for the leader. This of course may affect some of the successful (bold and innovative) decisions taken in OTL.

Summing-up:
If the Axis somehow manages to stay intact as an alliance and beats the UK in Africa in time to start the invasion of the USSR in spring 1941 (there is a very slight possibility for this to happen), then there is a (not so bad) chance for Axis victory by the sacrifice of Japan. I do not consider this completely impossible, but very improbable. God be thanked for that, since I am very happy with the Allied victory.

Of course with Japan in the Axis there is no chance to avoid a war with the USA and war with the USA will end in defeat for the Axis.

Kind regards,
G.
 
Top