Did the Axis have any chance at all in WWII?

[Ned]

What would have happened had Hitler NOT invaded Poland, but instead ALLIED with her to invade Russia?

Ned

[orange]

Originally posted by Ned
What would have happened had Hitler NOT invaded Poland, but instead ALLIED with her to invade Russia?

Ned

Poland? Invade the Soviet Union? BWAHHHHAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAHAAAAHAHHAH AHAHANBANANAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA :deep breath: BWAAAAAAAAHAHHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAHAHAB ANANAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That was a good one

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by orange
Russo-Japanese war? That was a Japanese victory

Plus, it was even before WWI.

[orange]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Plus, it was even before WWI.

yup, and that's the only thing I can think of...

[Mr. President]

If Germany had not attempted the disastrous invasion of Russia, but had rather leaned on Britain until they fell, they would have been able to gain control of the entire eastern shore of the Atlantic Ocean from Norway to the Sahara. Dislodging them would have been difficult.

But perhaps the first point is irrelevant anyway. German aircraft lacked the range to trouble targets beyond Britain's southern reaches. Without clear air superiority invasion would have been difficult to say the least.

[David James]

Originally posted by orange


hmmm, not sure I follow this...

his easiest gains were in northern and western Europe. And barbarossa was possibly his greatest blunder of the war.

I think we've established that Germany could not have defeated England, at least, not taken it over with land forces...no chance.

They might have been the easiest gains, but they were pyrhic gains... the cost of those territories was the amount of manpower uselessly employed to garrison them. The Germans came *very* close to succeeding with Barbarossa; they may even have won it were it not for the 6 weeks wasted in Southern Europe (the Balkans, Greece and Crete - which deprived them of airborne troops as well). But they certainly would have won it with the additional troops that were occupying Western Europe. For instance, on January 1944, there were 179 divisions fighting in the East and 26 in SE Europe. But there were 53 in Western Europe, 22 in Italy and 16 in Scandinavia. Yes, most were in the East but a significant chunk were elsewhere doing not too much, and this was true for the entire war.

I've not changed my name; ask David Floyd or Bodington's

[orange]

yes, but France and England had already declared war. They'd still need to hold the western front, if not conquer it as they did.

Hmmm, i suppose you're not a frequenter of the OT then?

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, David James has been here for a long time... just hasn't posted much lately.

[TCO]

WQelcome..el presidente!!

[Ned]

Originally posted by orange


Poland? Invade the Soviet Union? BWAHHHHAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAHAAAAHAHHAH AHAHANBANANAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA :deep breath: BWAAAAAAAAHAHHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAHAHAB ANANAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That was a good one

Yeah, and in retrospect, it is probably one of the few ways Hitler could have won WWII. France and England may have even been on the same side as Hitler in that war given the politics of the time. Hitler would have invaded Russian in 1939! long before Russia would have had time to bring the T34 into production. It would have been a cakewalk.

Later, in exchange for "granting" Poland vast new lands in Russia, the Germans may have gotten back the corridor to Danzig and beyond.

Ned

[Rogan Josh]

I don't think it would have been too hard for Germany to win WW2. The fact that they didn't was down to having loonies in charge -- Hiltler in Germany and Churchill in the UK.

The only big mistake Germany made was attacking the USSR. If they had kept them on the sidelines, there would have been no problem. They expanded massive amounts of troops and weaponary on the Eastern Front which, had it been used on the Western Front, would easily have demolished any UK/US invasion.

Also, I think Germany didn't expect the UK's behaviour with that melgomaniac Churchill in charge. They offered the UK a fairly fair peace after the fall of France, which Churchill was stupid not to take. Instead Churchill prostituted his country to the US and the UK lost everything.

[our_man]

Hitler's biggest mistake was invading Russia, but given that this was the goal he had to acheive in order to provide Lebensraum in the East, I don't think a decision not to attack Russia would be realistic.

I believe the Axis could have won the war if Japan had joined Germany in taking out the Soviet Union instead of attacking the U.S.A. The only question is would the U.S. sit back and allow this to happen, or would they have decided to attack the Axis of their own accord, without provocation, in fear of the balance of power in the event of a complete Axis victory over Britain and the Soviet Union.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by orange


yup, and that's the only thing I can think of...

There was a brief clash over border lines in Manchuria in 1937 or 1938 I think. The Russians smashed the Japanese with their heavy armor, prompting the Japanese to design a heavier tank. The Japanese knew that with their meager resources they coul not afford to build in large numbers tanks with enough armor and gun power to match the Soviets, so they remained very reluctant to take on the Soviets again.

[Inverse Icarus]

i hate it when people make fun of Poland's war abilities. IT's basically a huge chunk of flat land between russia and germany, and every time it gets independence someone invades and claims it, or they split it up before order is restored.

to quote a Polish lady i saw on the History channel talking about the "Germanification" of Poles: "Nothing, not even death, can ever change the soul of a Pole". Being 25% Polish :d:

[Tom201]

Well it was beaten in ww1 and ww2 in notime. Saying Poland could have invaded Russia is a bit funny, no?