AXIS: Why did they lost WW2? Mistakes?

[Nightbat®]

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

The result was a decisive defeat for the German air forces as the British now knew where they were going to focus on.

Uhm, the decisive defeat was because the Luftwaffe shifted it's attacks from airbases and it's installations
to cities, giving the RAF time to repair and replenish
had the Luftwaffe continued it's relentless assault on fightercommand just a little longer, there wouldn't have been any opposition left for German bombingraids

[JC...]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

There were these little organizations known as the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy that made an invasion a pipe dream. Even without active British resistance in the channel, what exactly were they going to use to get troops across and keep them supplied? An attempt to invade Britain would have been a humiliating failure. Also, that's not what Hitler wanted. He made it explicitly clear that his goal was territory in Eastern Europe.

Lol at the sarcasm, I actually meant what the guy above (This post) said, I just made the mistake on the invasion part, tiredness...

[Bri]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Only thing that stops the Soviets is water...their navy and my extention marine landing equipment was not all that good. and from what I understand wasn't deployed in the Pacific..thus it would have taken time for the Soviets to even think of invading Japan. And if the Americans had decided not to help, they might even let what is left of the Japanese Navy free in the north to stop them (or even gotten in the Soviets way...the Allies raced towards Berlin in Europe...what is to stop them from trying to counter the Soviets in Japan? Can you imagine a North and South Japan with a split Tokyo during the Cold War (with only a fully communist Korea behind them).)

Interesting point you make there. The completion of the second 5 year plan in 1937 had lead to the industrialisation of the Ural and the Central Asian part of the Soviet Union, thereby putting the soviet war industry forever out of reach of the German army. This pretty much guaranteed a Soviet win in a war of attrition. By the beginning of 1942 it was clear that the advance of the Nazis was over.

Assuming the Soviets would have defeated the Nazis on their own, some other WOII battles greatly influenced post WWII events. The UK survived the battle of Britain and the attack on Pearl Harbour forced an early entry by the US. These two events made the invasion of Normandy possible and the western front in Europe. Without that western front the Soviets would have taken Western Europe as well.

If the Pacific war had started later the Soviets might have joined in a race for Tokyo. I don't like to think about the effect this could have had on the course of the Cold War.

[SoldierOfDarkness]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

Uhm, the decisive defeat was because the Luftwaffe shifted it's attacks from airbases and it's installations
to cities, giving the RAF time to repair and replenish
had the Luftwaffe continued it's relentless assault on fightercommand just a little longer, there wouldn't have been any opposition left for German bombingraids

Uh yeah and while that was happening the RAF was able to determine exactly where the mass air strike was going to occur. Not to mention the distance to London was much further and therefore it was harder for the Luftwaffe to protect their bombers better.

[ZephyrLeanne]

You know, if you asked me, it boils down to two things.

1. (Mother) Russia. Or rather, the Germans got all too ambitious and started to try to take on Mother Russia.

2. Britain is an island, the Germans weren't a naval power, but rather a land force power.

[neowind]

Originally Posted by genjichan

You probably know I often post "war topic", because I love arguments.

Please comment on a particular Axis (Germany, Italy and Japan), or in general and then answer the question.

Argument Open!!!!!

haha.. oh boy..their is so many factors.. yeah overall germany had better everything but their were mistakes made. i mean germany double cross russia. the u.s join in. there paper work that said whole s.s didnt want u.s being part of the war but it happen. just there to many thing that happen. and if things were different sure they could have win but the hilter want to much.

Originally Posted by Jaden

You can go in to detail like how Germany didn't have the proper weapons to fight England with, how they lacked oil for their army, how their allies were few and incompetent, but...

The truth is they were just too ambitious, if they had set themselves more realistic objectives than taking over the world, they may have been able to, in some ways, "win" a war.

yeah/. i mean they had better tanks then anyone .it just he was too ambitious. and when the u.s join. damn they were mass producing everything and when britin got the chance after teh raids to make a come back they did the same.

over all there again so many small factor//that s.s could have change to win. but thank that they didnt. i mean.. they had heavy water but the french resistance destory their plants. i mean think what the s.s could have done with that. and they also had winter station in canada and gas weapon testing bases in Africa but thing swent wrong on all of them. so thats good thing

Originally Posted by ZephyrLeanne

You know, if you asked me, it boils down to two things.

1. (Mother) Russia. Or rather, the Germans got all too ambitious and started to try to take on Mother Russia.

2. Britain is an island, the Germans weren't a naval power, but rather a land force power.

^_^

[Spectacular_Insanity]

TL;DR...

Germans overextended themselves. They lost because their supply lines got repeatedly broken by Russia's total-war tactic of destroying everything behind them as they retreated, and their retaliation was swift and brutal. Their pointless attempt to conquer northern Africa didn't help their problem with lack of manpower and raw production materiel.

Britain's air force, if you want to be technical about it, was actually inferior to Germany's, but like the US, they were able to preserve enough of it to win out in the long-term war of attrition that the last 2 years of the war ended up being.

I disagree with the idea that Germany's navy was inferior. They had the U-boats, which were a massive strategic advantage. Though they ultimately lost most of them as the Allies got better at tracking them with their destroyers and sinking them with depth charges, for a while they were the terror of the Atlantic.


And Japan, well.... they got nuked. TWICE. End of story. I think that would be enough to make most governments surrender.

[felix]

"It doesn't matter how big and strong you are, a big enough stick always wins."

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by neowind

yeah/. i mean they had better tanks then anyone

No, they didn't. A sherman or T-34 were an even match for the German panzer IV. A Pershing or IS series tank was a match for a panther or a tiger. People just like to compare Germany heavy tanks to allied tanks that were 20 tons lighter. Though even then the deciding factor in tank battles was who got the first shot off. Shermans actually had a positive kill ratio against panthers even though US tank training was basically "Welcome to France. Here's your tank. You've got an hour to figure out how to use the thing. Good luck."

over all there again so many small factor//that s.s could have change to win. but thank that they didnt. i mean.. they had heavy water but the french resistance destory their plants. i mean think what the s.s could have done with that. and they also had winter station in canada and gas weapon testing bases in Africa but thing swent wrong on all of them. so thats good thing

Germany was never going to develop nuclear weapons. Their project didn't have nearly enough resources allocated, they were approaching it from the wrong direction, and the scientists involved who could have known saw little reason to steer things in the right direction because they weren't comfortable building a nuclear weapon and realizing they didn't have the resources to do so anyway. Also, Hitler wouldn't approve the deployment of chemical weapons. It isn't that Germany didn't have any, they did. However, Hitler experienced a gas attack first hand in WWI, which soured him on chemical weapons on the battlefield. Even in the end with Soviet forces battering down the door to Berlin, Hitler refused to allow the use of chemical weapons. Also note the mindset here in contrast with using a commercial pesticide in the holocaust. The same man who refused to use chemical weapons on the battlefield even if it meant losing the war had no problems with using them to kill Jews. It shows the level of dehumanization there.

Originally Posted by Spectacular_Insanity

Britain's air force, if you want to be technical about it, was actually inferior to Germany's, but like the US, they were able to preserve enough of it to win out in the long-term war of attrition that the last 2 years of the war ended up being.

The thing is, the luftwaffe could never bring its full numbers to bear over Britain, and most German aircraft were too short ranged to stay in combat long. Also any pilots shot down over Britain were lost to Germany even if they managed to bail out unharmed. The British on the other hand could base aircraft beyond Germany's ability to strike, didn't have the same fuel concerns, and if a pilot managed to survive getting shot down, he'd be given a lift back to base.

I disagree with the idea that Germany's navy was inferior. They had the U-boats, which were a massive strategic advantage. Though they ultimately lost most of them as the Allies got better at tracking them with their destroyers and sinking them with depth charges, for a while they were the terror of the Atlantic.

So did the US and British, and they had the surface fleets to go along with it. Germany was never going to win the war with subs. Even in the "happy times" for German U-boats, they weren't sinking enough tonnage to cut of Britain from supplies from North America. They'd need to have kept those numbers up for the entire war, and even then by 1943, the US alone would be producing more merchant ships than Germany could sink, not counting Canada and Britain's production.

[MAQI]

I have nothing specific to say about why they lost but here is why I think their way of going about it was wrong. They lost because they failed to realize that a true take over of the world takes many lifetimes of planning, not a huge war, I mean just look whats happening to the world's economy, you know who controls that, right? like 10% of the world's population. When all will be said and done they will be in charge through all mighty currency, and we will all be slaves to them because we didn't realize over many generations what was going on and who was behind it... they lost because they were greedy and wanted too much too fast.

[Kyuu]

The Axis failed to consider the sheer industrial power in the United States. Fear those factory muscles!

[JokerD]

Other than the armies, I think the intel area is lacking among the axis as well. The western allies could read the transmission of both Germany and Japan, which lead to counters against their strategy.

Even in counter intelligence, the spy ring in GB was controlled by the British instead of the Germans, that showed how bad the intel front was for the Axis.

[Father Hentai]

In fact it is already mentioned why the Axis lost.

Germany started a two front war against England on the west and Russia on the east. This extended the chain of supply.

A big problem on the east side was - well mentioned - the chain of supply and the cold winter. The German troops were not prepared for a long war on snow terrain.

On the Pacific side. Well, the nuclear bomb decided everything at the end. however I don't believe that the Pacific side could have won by the Axis because the supplies and technology were not as good as in the European countries.