Could the Axis have won?

[Noncommunist]

After having had incredible success early on in the war, were there potential choices which could have altered the course of the war? If Hitler had sent more supplies to Rommel, could the Suez have been seized? Or would a more focused approach have won the battle of Britain? Would invading the Soviets in April have helped? And would focusing on one target have worked? Similarly, were there choices that the Japanese could have made to either help the Germans with the Soviets? Or could the Japanese have targeted a different part of the Pacific to cut off Australia from the US? And would more troops have helped with Burma and India? And could Pearl Harbor have been avoided or been done better? Or did the allies simply have too many resources and too many reasons to fight the Axis that would have made any victory impossible?

[Montmorency]

If the Axis were led by a seasoned wargamer, and war proceeded exactly as depicted in HOI, the world would have been entirely conquered within two years.

Or did the allies simply have too many resources and too many reasons to fight the Axis that would have made any victory impossible?

I figure this one makes the most sense. Though apparently Germany would have met all its oil needs (ie. oil deficit) with just 10% of the output from the Caucasian oilfields. At Baku, I've heard, the oil was only a few tens of meters below the surface and could have been extracted even without the advanced machinery. Anyone want to confirm?

But I don't know much about this stuff.

[AggonyDuck]

I suppose the only way that the Axis could have won is if they could have somehow kept the US out of the war.

[Beskar]

USA wasn't really the issue, a Russian defeat would have changed the tide considerably or even deciding not to even attack Russia, but the issue with that was Russia was building up its arms, so a later assault would have been met by stronger soviet forces.

[Noncommunist]

If the Axis were led by a seasoned wargamer, and war proceeded exactly as depicted in HOI, the world would have been entirely conquered within two years.

Is that presuming that the allies are also run by seasoned wargamers? Or their real reactions?

[Montmorency]

AI.

[Brenus]

The problem with the “what if” is the “if”: Hitler had to attack France when he did, as France was rearming fast, and new material was coming (especially planes) and the French tanks were better. Few months more, and Gamelin would have been in pension, and nobody could say if a new Head of Allies Forces would have done…
There are a lot of “if” in your first assessment. The entire plan was based on the “Blitz Krieg”. This war failed when the Red Army wasn’t destroyed at the borders. Then Germany had no weapons for a strategic war (no Strategic Bombing Command). Hitler gambled and lost, as shown by the lack of winter clothing in 1941… The first major German defeat is in front of Moscow in 1941. German’s campaigns after 1941 was just a try to compensate a failure.

“so a later assault would have been met by stronger soviet forces.”: The Soviet were stronger than the Nazi. The problem was the lack of competent military leaders thanks to Stalin paranoia and the purges. Perhaps the Germans would have met more T 34, but the counter-offensive would have been still un-coordinated, and Russian men sacrificed in vain.

About the Pacific War, I think the Japanese were at the limit of their operational capacities in attacking Midway, and that why they failed. How, could they have cut Australia from USA? The Germans tried it with U-boot and nearly succeeded for few months, but, then, they failed.

[Franconicus]

Well, what were the alternatives?

Not attacking Poland, of course. Well, then the Drittes Reich would have been bankrupt (not too bad allternative).

The invasion of Scandinavia and France went pretty well. Dunkerque could have been better, though.
I think Hitler had a little chance then to end the war. We all know that Churchill's Britain was not willing to give in, but I always wondered what would have happaned if Germany offered peace at relatively good terms to France and Poland. Taking Elsac-Lorraine and Danzig to the Reich, but leaving the rest. Making a military political and economic alliance with Poland, the BeNeLux, Norway, Sweden and France. Germany would have been the leading nation on the continent. What reason would Britain have had to go on fighting? What reasion the USA to join the war. Hitler could have waited some years and then invading Russia.

The other chance was the submarine war. With a focus on this weapon and w/o that Enigma stuff, Germany would have a chance to cut off the British Islannds and to force Britain to peace. Maybe not a lasting one, but at least a chance.

I do not believe in anything else. Why should Germany have won the war, if it was able to take seize Suez? It would have been some trouble for Britain to loose the swa route throught th Med, but Germany would not have had the resources to invade Arabia or even India.
Moscow? Even the fall of Moscow would not have ended the war against the Soviets.

[Kocmoc]

Well, wait.

Brenus is right in most points.

Let me add a few.

Judet was a great Problem, same as Göbbels. Both didnt thought about a long war and that was the reason for not having strategic bomber.
Stuka everywhere, they even tried to get the JU-88 to work as Sturzkampfbomber.

Back to the "IF".

After beating france, many people did look at the "map" and probably thought: "wow, now the axis have won…"

In the first place, the Masterplan was to not get france or UK involved into the war. Hitler wanted to invade poland and than go for russia.
Its also worth to mention, that the war wasnt planned to start 39, back in 1935/36 the plan was, to start war around 41/43.

IF, france and UK would have stand out of the war, Hitler would had just run east, full force. If he would have won it is still questionable,
but it would have been a much harder fight with a lot more troops and material.

Now, after beating france, there was 2 ways to continue the war:

1. "Fall Gelb" - invading england. There are documents out from the english war achieve, that the UK fleet wouldnt be able to stop the invasion.
If Hitler would had invaded england there would have been a good chance (much better than "barbarossa") to win it.

The problem was the "air war above england", one real problem was the range of the bf109. Today many people tend to explain the heavy losses of the
german airforce with the "Radar" in south england. If you consider, that in late days of the air war, most radarstations had serious problems to get the
information about planes incoming to the english airports, I say that 10 min warning got reduced to 2 min or less.
So the real problem was the short range of the 109, which had fuel for about 10-15 min airfight or to defend german bomber.

2. "barbarossa". Today we know in most cases, what happened and what the plan was. The german blitz didnt work, that for sure.
Not much to add, the early days went good, than the already mentioned t34 hit the field and just rolled over the pz4 and stug3 and all the lower tier tanks.
The real deal was the very bad leadingstructur the russians had at that time, they had a "polit-based" leadership in the early days, after stalin killed 90% of all officer (not himself ofc ;) ).

At stalingrad things changed, the "politgarde" got replaced and the real boys took over.



Rommel. In short words. Rommel had a lot of success determined by the amount of supplies reached northafrica.
The real deal was the spies germany had, many, if not all, countries in north africa did like the germans. They was almost always advanced in knowledge of the allied troops.
Till the day of the US boys arrived, rommel would have had a real good chance to crack it up.

Here comes malta into place, since italien fucked it up a few times, the german paratroops had to take kreta instead of malta.
"IF", they would have taken malta, and if you look at the battle of kreta, you know, they would had taken malta for sure, the whole supply route would have been free.
This one thing is almost sure, malta = airsupport = no habor for the english fleet = supply for rommel = almost no supply for UK = suez canal!

…. enough for today

[Papewaio]

Crete was a strategic victory, but a hard learned lesson for the Germans. How many times did Germany use paratroops using parachutes post Crete?

Malta was arguably better prepped and ready so the casualties potentially would have been even worse.

North Africa was originally played brilliantly as a logistical campaign against the Axis/Germans. Germany probably would have won if they had Malta. But they probably would have to accept losing a lot of their paratroops to have done so.

[Kocmoc]

Crete was a strategic victory, but a hard learned lesson for the Germans. How many times did Germany use paratroops using parachutes post Crete?

Malta was arguably better prepped and ready so the casualties potentially would have been even worse.

North Africa was originally played brilliantly as a logistical campaign against the Axis/Germans. Germany probably would have won if they had Malta. But they probably would have to accept losing a lot of their paratroops to have done so.

Correct. As i mentioned in my post, Im not going to get into detail.
German paratroops got used a few times, but only one big attack, that should be malta in the first place, but in the end it was crete.
After that they losses made Hitler decide to not use these elite troops again in such a way.

I just pointed out, that they probably had won malta as well, which would have changed the war in north africa for sure.
Especially if you consider the fact, that with the airport on malta the germany would had a huge range advance.

The losses of ships by plane attacks was huge, so the strategic worth of malta was a lot higher than crete.


There were tons of problems, if you consider the amount of tanks the russian did produce, the millions of soldiers.
The USA with a hardcore amount of industry power. The japans and the german could probably do a lot things better, the result, the end would have been the same.

The question should not be in which certain region or what attack first.
The question should be, how to keep the USA out of the war?

There are tons of interesting questions out there. Let me mention one of them, how could it be, that the t34 can get on the battlefield and the germans didnt really had an answer ready? How could it happen, that the "german blitz" went from an advanced army towards an reactive army?


In germany we have to words, "Breitenrüstung" and "Tiefenrüstung", germany choose the "Breitenrüstung" this means, a lot of war-producer did produce weapons in their "own" caliber, their own ammunition. This was made for a short war, with one border. The problem is a logistic problem. the longer a war takes, the harder it is, to distribute
all the different ammunition to the different warplaces. Its a cheap and very quick way to produce a lot of war material in a short time.

The "Tiefenrüstung" is the better way, considering you going for a longer war on different places. You have very few standards, you go with one or 2 caliber. This way the logistic have a quite easy job. "there are 400 tanks in malta, give them 50 shots each"…. "alright, they need both kind of ammunition, the 76er and the 88er"… " okay, I send them 20k shot of each of it"…. DONE!

In Germany, almost each tankversion had different ammounition, you couldnt work like this. There are books out, which look only at the logistics of wars. You can read, that in the first 2 years, while the range of the front wasnt too far away, the logistic was fine. The rate of the correct sent packages was around 85%.
In the 1941 and 1942, the rate of correct sent packages dropped to 60%. You have to consider that in most cases always 10-20% of the package was not usable, since the logistics ordered standard base packages.

This was a huge problem, especially vs. the russians.



To the general idea of these questions.

Im a german, I dont want to imagine an outcome, where the axis would have won. I also dont want to think about a way, where the axis would have fight better/longer.
I exactly know where the two A-bombs would have been dropped. Now call me selfish, but yes, at this point Im selfish as hell. Better someone else, than me, my family or my country.

[Brenus]

@ Komoc. I never though of it. All these people arguing about more V2, more Me 262, more Tigers (ignoring the fact that Germany in 1945 had a shortage of soldiers) would have perhaps change the winds of victory. This would have left to the Allies (if potential German's Victory) to only one option: not "miracle" potential weapons but the A bombs...

[Fisherking]

The only way to keep the US out of the war would have been to kill FDR.

He was a prime conspirator in US entry into WW I and he worked hard to get them into WW II.

The Germans refused to rise to the bait but he pushed the Japanese over the brink.

The Axis was still fighting an undeclared war the US. I don’t know how big a drain it was on them

Seemingly the only way to have kept the US out of the war was to have a different man in office.

[Franconicus]

What do you think about the idea of makig peace with Poland and France after the victory over France. Would GB been able to continue the war?

Regarding Rommel, I think that he had a lot of luck. I do not agree that the Krauts had more info than the allies. Contrary, enigma seemed to lay everything open, the deployment and orders of the Germans. It was always surpising how easy Rommel drove the Brits back right after his arrival with I think only one division. Now it seemed as if the Brits knew his orders, which told Rommel to stop and wait for the second division. He ignored his orders and took the British by surprise. However, this did not work later, esp. at El Al.

[ReluctantSamurai]

If Hitler had sent more supplies to Rommel, could the Suez have been seized?

No. The problem wasn't getting supplies to N.Africa (despite Malta) it was getting them to the front. Without a RR, this was nearly impossible.

I've always felt that if Germany had offered Japan something concrete, in particular, the technology for high-pressure coal gasification, it might have tipped the decision in the Japanese Diet to attack the Soviet Union at the time when the German Operation Typhoon was jumping off. There were more than a few members in the Diet who still wished to wage war with the SU, so this kind of proposal might have found support. The Japanese were fully capable of invading and capturing Vladivostok (which, as it turned out, was the port of entry for more LL than all the other routes combined) and harassing other areas that kept them out of tank country (one reason for their defeat at Khalkin Gol).

Now there weren't all that many Far Eastern divisions that were sent to the Moscow Military District (9 divisions out of the 50 that participated in the Dec counter-offensive), but anything that ratcheted up the heat on Stalin's government could only help the Germans. Moscow's fall certainly doesn't guarantee Stalin's capitulation, but it would certainly have made things far more grim for the Soviets.

[Sarmatian]

I've always felt that if Germany had offered Japan something concrete, in particular, the technology for high-pressure coal gasification, it might have tipped the decision in the Japanese Diet to attack the Soviet Union at the time when the German Operation Typhoon was jumping off. There were more than a few members in the Diet who still wished to wage war with the SU, so this kind of proposal might have found support. The Japanese were fully capable of invading and capturing Vladivostok (which, as it turned out, was the port of entry for more LL than all the other routes combined) and harassing other areas that kept them out of tank country (one reason for their defeat at Khalkin Gol).

Now there weren't all that many Far Eastern divisions that were sent to the Moscow Military District (9 divisions out of the 50 that participated in the Dec counter-offensive), but anything that ratcheted up the heat on Stalin's government could only help the Germans. Moscow's fall certainly doesn't guarantee Stalin's capitulation, but it would certainly have made things far more grim for the Soviets.

Even with German technology, it was only a partial solution and a very long-term one. It would have taken years to set up plants to effectively produce coal gas and convert it to fuel in meaningful quantities.

Another issue is that, unlike Germany, Japan's coal reserves were small, expensive to extract and coal ore was of poor quality. Most of coal came outside home islands.

Another issue is whether Japanese could have seriously threatened Russian Far Eastern Army, which was over a million strong and well-supplied. Even at it's peak, Kwantung Army wasn't over 1.5 million strong (iirc) and lacked equipment for mechanised warfare. Symbolic capturing of Vladivostok could have maybe been possible but that wouldn't do much to hurt the Soviets. Lend-lease made up only a small fraction of Soviet war-time production and the bulk of it came too late. It allowed the Red Army to perform offensive operations more efficiently, thus saving time and lives but it had absolutely zero effect on turning the tide.

[Kocmoc]

What do you think about the idea of makig peace with Poland and France after the victory over France. Would GB been able to continue the war?

Regarding Rommel, I think that he had a lot of luck. I do not agree that the Krauts had more info than the allies. Contrary, enigma seemed to lay everything open, the deployment and orders of the Germans. It was always surpising how easy Rommel drove the Brits back right after his arrival with I think only one division. Now it seemed as if the Brits knew his orders, which told Rommel to stop and wait for the second division. He ignored his orders and took the British by surprise. However, this did not work later, esp. at El Al.

Well, your question clearly shows your lack of knowledge.
Read, before you ask well known things.

1. Hitler tried to leave the allies out of the war, he didnt expected that UK/France would stick to poland.
2. Hitler let the UK get almost their full europe army out of dünnkirchen, since he expected to get some kind of peace with UK
3. Hess flied over to UK on its own, 10th may 1941
4. rommel had no luck, he was an very experienced leader, already shown in WW1, read a book he wrote after WW1 "Infantry greift an"

This kind of posts and terrible knowledge of history give me a hard time to stay friendly!

[Brenus]

About Japan: Do remember that the Japanese had a very bad experience against USSR at Khalkhin Gol. It even could have been a second victory (just after Moscow) Russian victory against the Axe. Potentially, it could have change the political Chinese landscape much faster (linking with Mao Zedong). Japan had initial success against (mainly) USA because they were fighting the same war (naval and airplanes) with landing of Marines. Soon, it became obvious that the Japanese Land Forces were inadequate in term of equipment, material, logistic and tactic. Banzai attack against T34 would have been doom to failure.
“What do you think about the idea of making peace with Poland and France after the victory over France? Would GB been able to continue the war?” It would have depended on the terms, of course.
France signed an armistice, and as result, lost half of her territory, etc. Hitler knew that a peace treaty was just the seed of another war if Germany kept Alsace Lorraine, territories he couldn’t give back even if wouldn’t have been who he was…
Just look how the Countries who welcomed Germany as liberators in East Europe: Nazi ideology couldn’t accept a classical Peace treaty (we take part of your territory and we prepare for the next war).
Or, even worst, how Germany treated their allies…

[Conradus]

Seems your info on Dunkirk is a little off.

German mistakes

German land forces might have pressed their attack on the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) and the Allies, especially having secured the ports of Calais and Boulogne. For years, it was assumed that Adolf Hitler ordered the German Army to stop the attack, favouring bombardment by the Luftwaffe. However, according to the Official War Diary of Army Group A, Generalfeldmarschall Gerd von Rundstedt – the Chief of the General Staff, disconcerted by the vulnerability of his flanks and supply to his forward troops, ordered the halt.[38][39][40] Hitler merely validated the order several hours after the fact. Hitler had been urged by Göring to let the Luftwaffe finish the British off,[38] much to the consternation of OKH Chief of Staff, General Halder,[41] who noted in his diary that the airforce was dependent upon the weather.[41] This lull in the action provided the Allies a few days to evacuate by sea. Von Rundstedt had ordered the halt on 23 May, confirmed by Hitler on 24 May at 11:30 am. On 26 May, at 1:30 pm Hitler ordered the German armour to continue the advance, but the delay had allowed the construction of defences vital for the following week's evacuation.

[Franconicus]

Thank you for your friendly words. I red your lines, but I still cannot see the answer to my stupid question.
After the victories over France and Poland, Hitler proposed peace with GB, which was still undefeated and hard to attack. I peace offer to Poland and France would be a different thing. Both were defeated and if he would have given good terms, I guess they would have accepted. What other option did they have. With Poland and Frnace as friends of Germany or even allies, what reason would Churchill have had to go on with the war? Could he really motivate the English to fight and free the continent, when the French and Poles found an agreement with Germany? Would the USA had any reason to step in?

Well, your question clearly shows your lack of knowledge.
Read, before you ask well known things.

1. Hitler tried to leave the allies out of the war, he didnt expected that UK/France would stick to poland.
2. Hitler let the UK get almost their full europe army out of dünnkirchen, since he expected to get some kind of peace with UK
3. Hess flied over to UK on its own, 10th may 1941
4. rommel had no luck, he was an very experienced leader, already shown in WW1, read a book he wrote after WW1 "Infantry greift an"

This kind of posts and terrible knowledge of history give me a hard time to stay friendly!

[Brenus]

“With Poland and France as friends of Germany or even allies, what reason would Churchill have had to go on with the war? Could he really motivate the English to fight and free the continent, when the French and Poles found an agreement with Germany? Would the USA had any reason to step in?”:
The reasons for UK to go to war were still valid. The UK didn’t want a strong Continental Power, and that was UK policy for centuries.
Would a “neutralisation” of France by an acceptable Peace Treaty change this? No.
France was as friendlier to Germany as possible thanks to the betraying of Marshal Pétain lead by Laval. The deportation of Jews were done without request of the German, the Collaborationist French Government, after having destroy the Republic, provide Germany with free workers (STO), troops (L.V.F, 33 SS Division and various auxiliaries), and of course, the famous Milice. The Pétinist troops fought against the Allies each time they could (on the orders of Pétain) and, funny enough, if Germany/Hitler would have allow France to keep a Army, that could have change the path of the war (image the French Fleet fighting against the Allies in Mediterranean , reason of Mers El Khebir).

You second point is a wrong question: USA were attacked by Germany, they didn’t step in. Germany attacked the US merchants fleet following the Japanese Attack. So, the USA had no choice in this matter.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Even with German technology, it was only a partial solution and a very long-term one.

Agreed. But perhaps if the capture of Moscow does force the Soviets to capitulate (not likely, but possible), then oil could be sent from the Caucasus if the Trans-Siberian Railway can be improved enough to allow it. Also, the oil production facilities in the Sakhalin Islands becomes available to the Japanese to the tune of 580 million barrels/yr.

Another issue is whether Japanese could have seriously threatened Russian Far Eastern Army, which was over a million strong and well-supplied.

They could...as long as they stayed out of prime tank country like that found around Khalkin Gol, and operated in the heavily wooded areas (negating Soviet armored formations) around Kharbarovsk and Chingchangkou where their superiority in small unit tactics give them the advantage.

As of 21 June 1941, Soviet forces in the Far East (Ussuri, Amur, TransBaikal, and Outer Mongolia Districts) stood at 700,000 men, 2,700 AFV, and 2,800 aircraft. The Japanese had roughly 350,000 men and 1,100 aircraft.

As of September 1941, Soviet forces stood at 500,000 men, 1200 AFV, and 1100 aircraft. The Japanese Kwantung Army had swelled to over 700,000 men and 1100 aircraft. So by the fall of 1941, approximate parity, at least in terms of manpower had been reached. [figures are from Alvin D. Coox Nomonhan: Japan Against Russia 1939]

Symbolic capturing of Vladivostok could have maybe been possible but that wouldn't do much to hurt the Soviets. Lend-lease made up only a small fraction of Soviet war-time production and the bulk of it came too late.

I don't believe Vladivostok is simply symbolic and the discussion of LL is better kept to another topic

Banzai attack against T34 would have been doom to failure.

The Soviet tank force in the Far East were mainly BT-5's and BT-7's. All available T34's were facing the Germans. And even during the Khalkin Gol conflict, Soviet tank losses were very high due to "banzai" tactics that took advantage of the BT's penchant to catch fire.

2. Hitler let the UK get almost their full europe army out of dünnkirchen, since he expected to get some kind of peace with UK

This is pure conjecture that is quite difficult to prove.

4. rommel had no luck, he was an very experienced leader

True, but his complete lack of understanding of logistics in North Africa led directly to the defeat of the DAK.

[Conradus]

You second point is a wrong question: USA were attacked by Germany, they didn’t step in. Germany attacked the US merchants fleet following the Japanese Attack. So, the USA had no choice in this matter.

Well, they were already providing the UK with massive amounts of aid before that.

[Franconicus]

The USA escorted allied ships to the middle of the Atlantik, they supported the English by searching and fighting German submarines. The USA was looking for a cause. In the end, it was Germany that declared war - never really understood why.

[Sarmatian]

Agreed. But perhaps if the capture of Moscow does force the Soviets to capitulate (not likely, but possible), then oil could be sent from the Caucasus if the Trans-Siberian Railway can be improved enough to allow it. Also, the oil production facilities in the Sakhalin Islands becomes available to the Japanese to the tune of 580 million barrels/yr.

That's hindsight 20/20. IF the Japanese could correctly assess how quickly would Wehrmacht reach Moscow, IF Wehrmacht actually takes Moscow (it's a huge city, reaching it is not the same as taking it), IF it leads to Soviet capitulation (very unlikely)... A lot of if's, and it means taking on the army that kicked their butts twice recently. Even if all goes according to plan and then some, it's the Germans who get all the spoils and it leaves Japan dependent on German goodwill, which is contrary to the whole reason Japan went to war in the first place. Sure, Germany is friendly now, but US was friendly a few decades ago. On the other side, there are very rich and poorly defended areas ripe for the taking right that moment.

They could...as long as they stayed out of prime tank country like that found around Khalkin Gol, and operated in the heavily wooded areas (negating Soviet armored formations) around Kharbarovsk and Chingchangkou where their superiority in small unit tactics give them the advantage.

Debatable. I don't rate Japanese WW2 army that highly, but even if true, they would basically be conquering empty territory. Few population centres, few industry, and unlike modern Russia, Soviet Union at the time didn't exploit much of Siberian mineral wealth. Sure, it would have been a blow, but how severe.

I don't believe Vladivostok is simply symbolic and the discussion of LL is better kept to another topic

Yes, but if you argue capture of Vladivostok would have been severe for the Soviets due to loss of a major port for LL aid, the importance of LL overall becomes a valid point of discussion.

[ReluctantSamurai]

That's hindsight 20/20

I don't see how it is. The Germans did nothing but run all over the Soviets during the summer and fall of 1941, what would give the Japanese any indication that the Germans could be stopped?

A lot of if's, and it means taking on the army that kicked their butts twice recently.

Well, we are talking a bunch of what if's here, no?

Despite the setback at Khalkin Gol, there were a lot of supporters in the Japanese AGS that still wanted to wage war with the SU. What is also skimmed over in talking about the several border skirmishes before Khalkin Gol and Khalkin Gol itself is that the Japanese inflicted far more casualties than they took. At KG the Soviets took close to 30,000 casualties as opposed to 20,000 for the Japanese.

which is contrary to the whole reason Japan went to war in the first place.

My point, exactly. If the Germans (specifically I.G. Farben) help the Japanese with syn-fuel technology which, in the long run, will make Japan far more self sufficient with fuel production, it might have been enough to convince the Japanese general Staff to consider a northern move.

On the other side, there are very rich and poorly defended areas ripe for the taking right that moment.

Specifically, the DEI. If energy needs can be met in other ways, perhaps war with the US and the UK might be put off.

and unlike modern Russia, Soviet Union at the time didn't exploit much of Siberian mineral wealth

But they had developed the Sakhalin oil fields enough to yield substantial crude.

Debatable. I don't rate Japanese WW2 army that highly

As a whole, I would agree, but the one area that they excelled in was small unit tactics and this was one of the reasons they could inflict heavy casualties on the Soviets despite their lack of armor and mobile artillery.

Yes, but if you argue capture of Vladivostok would have been severe for the Soviets due to loss of a major port for LL aid, the importance of LL overall becomes a valid point of discussion.

Then discuss what you feel is pertinent. I just want to stay away from a detailed discussion of LL in this thread. We've all been there, seen it, done it, so-to-speak

[Brenus]

“The Soviet tank forces in the Far East were mainly BT-5's and BT-7's. All available T34's were facing the Germans. And even during the Khalkin Gol conflict, Soviet tank losses were very high due to "banzai" tactics that took advantage of the BT's penchant to catch fire.” True, but the Japanese still lost the battle. The Russian improved their side, the Japanese not. The Russian did learned their lessons front 1941, Finish War and reacted in producing new tactics. The inferior (compared with Russian) American Tanks (Grant) were more than match for the Japanese Tanks.
Then, if we speak of a Japanese attack, as shown in Malaysia, their logistic was too weak. You might leave on the country in Monsoon Countries, Siberia would be more difficult. Then, what would be the profits, gains, in Japanese terms? As mentioned, Siberia wasn’t really exploited at the time (except Gulags). The Sun Empire needed immediate profit, things to loot and with immediate effect…
And it would have distract forces from where they were needed..

“The USA was looking for a cause”: Yes, the President did. But, without Germany declaring war, nothing he could have done. Roosevelt turned back the request for help for French Paul Reynaud in 1940, as he had no choice…

[ReluctantSamurai]

The inferior (compared with Russian) American Tanks (Grant) were more than match for the Japanese Tanks

Considering where the Japanese had been fighting since 1931 (China), and where warfare with the United States would probably take place (all the various island chains strung across the Pacific), Japan had no need for a main battle tank that was the mainstay of European-based warfare. With a limited industrial base, the Japanese decided to focus on the two areas that could make the most difference in the areas they expected to fight: aircraft and naval ships.

The Sun Empire needed immediate profit, things to loot and with immediate effect…
And it would have distract forces from where they were needed

After the US embargo in July of 1941, they needed oil.

To get back to the original OP...the Axis might have succeeded within a very narrow window of opportunity. The end of 1941 or by spring 1942 at the very latest. After that, their possibilities of success fall rapidly. The reason for this, IMO, is the industrial power of the three major Allied nations...the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and the United States. Combined, their industrial output simply dwarfs the Axis powers by a huge margin. Any protracted conflict will allow more and more of that industrial power to be brought to bear, which is just what actually occurred.

Germany and her immediate allies (Italy, Romania, Hungary, and Finland) had the better chance. Japan was doomed the instant they attacked Pearl Harbor. There are tons of specific examples of how Germany could have done this or that differently and thus effected a better outcome, but IMHO, one of the biggest mistakes was alienating the population of the Ukraine during the summer and fall of 1941. Here they had a ready-made base of people that would gladly take up arms to throw off the hated regime of Stalin, and this would have instantly solved the problem of replacements for the front lines, as well as greatly lessened the occurrence of partisan activity on their longest supply line (that of AG South). The Trans-Caucasus District were not very friendly towards the communists either, and it's not inconceivable that they might have turned on the communists, as well. This would not bode very well for Stalin, and might have tipped the balance far enough to allow a German victory.

Japan's only chance, and an extremely slim one at that, was to attack only the Philippines and the DEI and stay away from anything "mainland" USA. The virtual firestorm created by attacking Hawaii galvanized the US public in a way that they might not have been had holdings thousands of miles away been the only targets.

Plan Orange and all of its rainbow configurations were simply pipe dreams on the part of the US military. At the time PH was attacked, the USN had exactly 11 fleet oilers in the Pacific, of which only 6 were capable of at-sea refueling. Their capacity was barely adequate to keep the main battle fleet at sea for a month, let alone for an extended campaign all the way to Manila. After repeated heavy losses, the US might have settled for peace....and I repeat, might. The whole venture would be a long shot for the Japanese, but certainly better than the way it actually played out. And to head off the "hind-sighter" argument, there were many in the Japanese High Command (including Adm. Yamamoto) who felt that attacking the US at that time was a very bad idea, so this whole train of thinking had already been done by high-ranking Japanese naval officers.

[Sarmatian]

Considering where the Japanese had been fighting since 1931 (China), and where warfare with the United States would probably take place (all the various island chains strung across the Pacific), Japan had no need for a main battle tank that was the mainstay of European-based warfare. With a limited industrial base, the Japanese decided to focus on the two areas that could make the most difference in the areas they expected to fight: aircraft and naval ships.

That is true, but the lack armour would have been a major issue in a protracted war with the Soviet Union.

After the US embargo in July of 1941, they needed oil.

Yes, it was their most pressing concern after the embargo, but it wasn't the only one. They were dependent on other stuff, too.

To get back to the original OP...the Axis might have succeeded within a very narrow window of opportunity. The end of 1941 or by spring 1942 at the very latest. After that, their possibilities of success fall rapidly. The reason for this, IMO, is the industrial power of the three major Allied nations...the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and the United States. Combined, their industrial output simply dwarfs the Axis powers by a huge margin. Any protracted conflict will allow more and more of that industrial power to be brought to bear, which is just what actually occurred.

I agree. If an Axis victory was possible at all, it could have happened in 1942 at the latest.

Germany and her immediate allies (Italy, Romania, Hungary, and Finland) had the better chance. Japan was doomed the instant they attacked Pearl Harbor. There are tons of specific examples of how Germany could have done this or that differently and thus effected a better outcome, but IMHO, one of the biggest mistakes was alienating the population of the Ukraine during the summer and fall of 1941. Here they had a ready-made base of people that would gladly take up arms to throw off the hated regime of Stalin, and this would have instantly solved the problem of replacements for the front lines, as well as greatly lessened the occurrence of partisan activity on their longest supply line (that of AG South). The Trans-Caucasus District were not very friendly towards the communists either, and it's not inconceivable that they might have turned on the communists, as well. This would not bode very well for Stalin, and might have tipped the balance far enough to allow a German victory.

Stalin's regime wasn't that much hated. Imperial Russia wasn't really a much better place to live. If Germany made it strictly a "regime change" war, than maybe they would have been able to recruit some of the population of SU, but I expect it would have been a very small part. It didn't happen in any war in modern times (post 19th century). Besides people's unwillingness to join the enemy, the conquering nations were naturally were reserved to arm a significant portion of enemy population. It usually ends up with a small minority assisting the invaders with intelligence and stuff like that.

Japan's only chance, and an extremely slim one at that, was to attack only the Philippines and the DEI and stay away from anything "mainland" USA. The virtual firestorm created by attacking Hawaii galvanized the US public in a way that they might not have been had holdings thousands of miles away been the only targets.

Japan's conquering spree in the Pacific and SE Asia would have definitely gotten America into the war, sooner or later. Japan couldn't win against a protracted war so they tried to re-enact the 1905 war against the Russians - seriously hurt the ability of the US to project power in the next few years, hoping it would bring them a favourable peace, but, even if they got the carriers, I don't think US would accept that. I believe their strategy was the best possible one considering the circumstances. Anything else and it would have been even worse.

Plan Orange and all of its rainbow configurations were simply pipe dreams on the part of the US military. At the time PH was attacked, the USN had exactly 11 fleet oilers in the Pacific, of which only 6 were capable of at-sea refueling. Their capacity was barely adequate to keep the main battle fleet at sea for a month, let alone for an extended campaign all the way to Manila. After repeated heavy losses, the US might have settled for peace....and I repeat, might. The whole venture would be a long shot for the Japanese, but certainly better than the way it actually played out. And to head off the "hind-sighter" argument, there were many in the Japanese High Command (including Adm. Yamamoto) who felt that attacking the US at that time was a very bad idea, so this whole train of thinking had already been done by high-ranking Japanese naval officers.

What does Plan Orange have to do with it? Japanese needed to defeat US Navy totally, and given just how US could outproduce Japan 20 times over, it was an unlikely possibility, and the final dead end was the fact that even if they managed it, they didn't have the capacity to seriously threaten mainland USA.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Stalin's regime wasn't that much hated.

But it was, very much so. A few lines from a novel by Vassily Grossman called Forever Flowing. He lived in a small village in the Ukraine during the forced farm collectivization of the late 20's and the great famine of 1933 when Stalin demanded even more grain shipments from the Ukraine leaving the local peasants to starve (nearly 20 million died):

"Then I came to understand the main thing for the Soviet power is the Plan. Fulfill the Plan...Fathers and mothers tried to save their children, to save a little bread, and they were told: You hate our socialist country, you want to ruin the Plan, you are parasites, kulaks, fiends, reptiles...But these are words, and that was life, suffering, hunger. When they took the grain, they told kolkhoz members they would be fed out of the reserve fund. They lied. They would not give grain to the hungry."

Stalin and his cronies were very much hated by the Ukrainians, and the Germans would have found a lot of support had they not treated the populace as bad or worse.

I believe their strategy was the best possible one considering the circumstances.

Do you feel that the American public would have stood for the long casualty lists of Tarawa, the Solomons, Peleliu, etc. without the cry of "Remember Pearl Harbor" ringing in their ears?

What does Plan Orange have to do with it?

If Japan attacks the Philippines only, or as in some what if's bandied about, bypass it without attacking and go straight to the DEI, the USN is relatively powerless (except for the subs based in Manila) to do much of anything about it for a very long time. What does the US do in either of those cases? Execute Plan Orange? Not likely.....