"Had the Axis effectively lost WW2 by the end of 1942?" Topic

By the end of 1942/January 1943 Germany had been defeated in North Africa at El.Alemein and on the eastern front at Stalingrad. Japan had been defeated at Guadalcanal and Midway.
Obviously there was still a long hard war to be fought, but was there any way the Axis could have turned it around, or was their defeat inevitable from 1943 onwards?

With 20:20 hindsight I can say with utmost confidence that their defeat was inevitable. At the time, not so much.

Honestly?…Only with atomic weapons…..Thank God they didn't have them….

There was a program of advanced weapons research going on in the back-ground. The race for the atomic bomb being perhaps the most notable. Extending the war to give time for these game changers to be developed may well have been something that in 1943 made a continued conventional war look viable.

I once read somewhere that a 5 year war advances technology by a rate of 60 years worth of peace-time R&D.

The German atom bomb project was going nowhere. There were many reasons.
1. The most important one. Nobody knew if it would work. Why waste money and resources on some crackpot scheme based on "Jewish science"?
2. Speaking of Jewish science, they all either fled or were in camps.
3. Heisenberg wasn't very enthusiastic about it in the first place and was on the wrong track anyway.

In a nutshell, the US could afford the research. Germany could not.
The US could afford to waste resources chasing wild geese.
Roosevelt was enthusiastic. Hitler was not.
German planes could not reach the US, let alone Oak Ridge and Hanford. Allied planes certainly could reach Germany.

The only real atomic bomb secret is that it worked. The rest is expensive engineering.

It was over in December 41:

" Now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all!…Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder."

- Prime Minister Winston Churchill

What FABET01 said, Barbarossa was the beginning of the end and Pearl Harbour just made sure that they were f…….er finished. What they could have done was, with a few minor differences, dragged the war on until 1947-48 making it even more horrific and bloody than it was.

Fatman

It was over in December 41:

Would America have declared War on Germany if Hitler had not declared War on America?

There was still a strong non-involvement sentiment here regarding the War in Europe. On the other hand the evil Japanese had made a "cowardly" attack against US at Pearl Harbor.

At that moment, to the ordinary citizen, Japan appeared more of a threat than Germany.

In a nutshell, the US could afford the research

Pleae amend:

In a nutshell, the US, Britain and Canada could afford the research. A useful site: link

It was not the atomic weapons that had Japan capitulate but the invasion of Mandchuria.

By mid 43 any one aware of everything(?) in their camp, with a bit of strategic brains should have known it was only a question of time.
Would the lower ranks know? No… See the weight of disinformation.

Axis lost WW2 when hitler said hey guys lets take over the World.

Hitler never wanted to take over the world -- just those parts that bordered what he already had.

Hitler never wanted to take over the world -- just those parts that bordered what he already had.

And then the parts that bordered on those. And then …

It was not the atomic weapons that had Japan capitulate but the invasion of Mandchuria.

The No Nukes people have been pushing this fallacy for years, despite the fact that Japanese witnesses and documents counter it very effectively. The Red Army might overrun Manchuria and Korea, but it did not have the amphibious capability to invade the Home Islands. The fact that, with the Bomb, the Western Allies could sit back and destroy Japan without invasion was the deciding factor.

One can argue about when the Axis was going to lose, but I'll suggest these dates:

Italy when it declared war on France.

Germany when it invaded the Soviet Union.

Japan when it attacked the U.S.

Yes, I understand that it took years and millions of lives to actually defeat the Axis powers, but if they had not done the above, they'd not have lost their wars.

Dan

Thanks Dan for bringing it back to my original post; it was in danger of being hijacked by "did the allies need to drop the Bomb?" So are you saying Germany never had a chance against the Soviet Union, even if Hitler hadn't declared war on the U.S. for instance?

Axis was under resourced and Hitler was a control freak.

Russia could afford cannon fodder and the US, massive industrial might.

As for the UK, it didn't know it was beaten and it was the unsinkable aircraft carrier!

Economically, Germany won the war in 1942. They just failed to failed to capitalise on the vast industrial potential at their disposal.

See, Richard Overy 'Why the Allies Won'.

Specific military victories and defeats were largely irrelevant in WW2, it was all about industrial production, oil and attrition.

Sorry, I am a little inebriated, more sober analysis may follow tomorrow.

If the Nazis had liberated the peasants of Ukraine and Belorussia from the collective farms, given them each an ox, a few chickens, 20 acres of land and farming tools, and paid them fair prices for their crops, they may well have brought down the Soviet regime in a sudden, vast wave of army mutinies and popular revolution. They would certainly have gained the loyalty of a productive population of 30 million who would have gladly filled the ranks of an army to fight for their own freedom.

Instead, the Nazis set out to exterminate the Slavs and steal every potato in Ukraine. They left the Russians with no choice but Stalin.

But. It's been said and I believe it. If the Nazis had had the vision to liberate and ally with the peoples of the USSR, they would not have been Nazis, and would never have gone on the Barbarossa adventure.

Economically, Germany won the war in 1942. They just failed to failed to capitalise on the vast industrial potential at their disposal.

See, Richard Overy 'Why the Allies Won'.

Specific military victories and defeats were largely irrelevant in WW2, it was all about industrial production, oil and attrition.

Martin has put his finger on the point.

In 1942 Germany controlled a larger population than Stalin, and a larger industrial base than Stalin and Churchill combined. And the US was still 2 years away from fielding an army that could influence events in Europe. If German leadership had implemented deliberate rational industrial policies and preparations in 1940 and/or 1941, they could have crushed their opponents by 1942.

The fact that the Nazis could not find their collective @sses with both hands regarding industrial policy was the reason they didn't destroy the Soviet Union, and achieve effective control over the entire landmass and population of Europe. U.S. war planning in the summer of 1941 clearly anticipated German success, and with good reason. But the Germans, while fielding a World Cup championship army in 1941, fielded an elementary school sports league national leadership team.

By the end of 1942 there was nothing Germany could do to recover the lost opportunity. At that point the path of the war was set.

Japan never even had a serious chance once the US was committed to war against them. Their only chance of anything other than disaster was for the US to have insufficient interest in prosecuting war against them. If Germany had beaten the Soviets by the end of 1942, then the US would have remained focused on Europe for several years. The Japanese could have continued their expansionist policies with little interference. But they anticipated German success too soon, and crossed a boundary with Pearl Harbor which effectively removed the potential for the US to lose interest in them from the start.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

The Nazi's managed to make Stalin look like the better option in the Ukraine.

Of course, any Nazi victory plans have to contend with the fact that they weren't getting across the Channel and US war aid would only increase, month by month.

Webster: (at a passing column of German prisoners) Hey! Hey, you! That's right! That's right! Say hello to Ford! And General ing Motors! Look at you! You have horses! What were you thinking?!
(Garcia pulls him down)
Webster: (mutters) Dragging our asses half-way around the world (then shouts) and for what?! You ignorant, servile scum! What the are we doing here!?

Heck, with perfect 20/20 why not say June 22, 1941 when the Germans started biting off more than they can chew?

28mm, you beat me to it.

Far too simplistic. There was a chance in 1941-if all had gone to plan-that Germany could have beaten the Russians. The entry of the USA did not end that chance. By late 1943 the numbers now showed that German defeat was just a matter of time. Only by mid 1943 was German defeat a matter of time.

The Germans had a good shot at defeating the Soviets if they'd just stuck to their original plan and Hitler kept his greasy fingers out of the details. What's more- Germany & Japan, although "allies", really had nothing to do with each other. Had they been true allies, Japan would have kept its policy of expansion focused on Mongolia & Eastern Soviets. This would have kept America on the sidelines & prevented the Soviets from shifting their Siberian armies westward to stop Barbarossa.

Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor brought the U.S. fully into the war. Had Hitler not declared war on the U.S. It can be hypothesized that the U.S. would have focused exclusively on the Pacific; they weren't keen on the Colonialist policies of the Europeans and that was Europe's war to fight. That said, while the U.S. got it's war footing under them, the Soviets were already pushing the Germans back.

So, IMHO, Germany's failure to prosecute the Russian invasion properly and failing to truly ally with Japan ended the war. I'd concur with the poster above who said December, 1941 was the decisive moment (the end of Barbarossa & the attack on the U.S.

Hitler never wanted to take over the world -- just those parts that bordered what he already had.

And then the parts that bordered on those. And then …

Exactly.

As for Germany-Japan:

Hitler's interest in Japan was for it to tie up Allied forces in the Pacific -- which it did. After Pearl Harbor, he probably assumed the U.S. would be focused primarily on the Pacific as well, so he might as well sink some convoys that were otherwise untouchable because they were escorted by a "neutral" navy. I'm sure he never anticipated the Europe-first strategy, nor realized the extent to which the U.S. could tool up for war, nor how quickly.

As for Japan -- there was little to tempt it in the Soviet Far East compared to the rich resources of Malaya and Indonesia. Japan didn't go to war to help out its German allies, it did so for reasons of its own.

Battle for Moscow – definitive turning point. Dec 1941. Rest of it just the fat lady humming a few bars.

Battle of Smolensk 1941. This threw off the Time Table for Barbarossa initially. Any changes in strategic direction in the East were moot after this Battle. It only held the Germans up but enough to know that the gears were loose on the campaign. I feel it all would hinge on the war in the East. A victory as planned by the Germans over USSR opens untold industry, agriculture, minerals to what any further plans by OKW would need to sustain and draw out a Peace with the English.

Barbarossa = Success means Pearl Harbor does not need to happen really. means why involve the USA in any war that the best conclustion for GB would be to sue for peace.

Just Sayin'.

JH

Even if the Germans defeat the Soviet military decisively, they'd still have to contend with a now continent-wide resistance and partisan uprising, while still lacking any ability to meaningfully strike the British.

And those US tanks and planes are going to keep on coming.

germany probably could have defeated russia, but who knows what would have happened after that. possible turning points: stalingrad, moscow and dunkirk. Germanys biggest hurdle would probably be manpower. However, reading stavka books, the russian high command was able to adapt and learn quickly, but had trouble with implementation and teaching lower officers.

Another factor is that much of the acquired industrial capacity was run by resentful (and often outright hostile) slave labour, resulting in frequent sabotage, delays and obstructions.

No, I don't think it was all over for the Axis by 12/42.

Better management of the German economy and different decisions on the battlefield could have beaten the Soviets.

Then they could redeploy the 70% (or whatever) of their army to defend their empire against the British and Americans.

The Japanese? Well….a couple of good typhoons could have hurt the Americans. The disparity of forces in the Pacific makes it pretty grim for Japan.

Only with hindsight.

The Allies could have blown it in 1943-44. By '45 not so much.

An early and weak D-Day could have failed. That would have been a serious setback.

The US and Britain might not have given the Soviet Union so much support. It could be argued much of the aid was not in the US/UK's 'interests'. Keeping the SU in the war without giving them the trucks and trains to retake lost territory and roll into Eastern Europe could perhaps have been a better idea. [Not necessarily my opinion but I can see how it might have made sense to some making the decisions]

Less or little support to the Soviets would have given the Germans a chance to win in the east or at least stabilize their situation long term.

A 'Japan First' strategy would have been a disaster and could easily have occurred. If Roosevelt had died in 1943 Truman may have caved in to pressure to go after Japan first.

Thankfully, the 'proper application of superior force' was broadly what happened. There were a few hiccups – but Germany was never allowed to get its head above water again.

If the Nazis had liberated the peasants of Ukraine and Belorussia

That is, if the Nazis hadn't been Nazis.