Would the Axis have won WW2 if Hitler had not ticked off Stalin?

[Attalus]

Whatever. Germany was NOT bound by its treaty to Japan to declare war on USA if they (Japan) attacked first. Which they did. The reason Hitler declared war on USA? He hated us, and Roosevelt more.

[Kakero]

IMO, it's a common knowledge that if A allied with B. When A attack C. C declare war with A. B is now also an enemy of C. If not then why make ally in the first place?

SO, Japan bomb USA ( Pearl Habour ). USA declare war with Japan. Which means USA will fight with Japan. As Japan's ally Germany will declare war with USA. This is part of allying thingie.

[ 06-30-2005, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: Kakero ]

[Q'alooaith]

You've got to take into account the situation in Japan at the time though, they had no real choice but to attack.

There's a lot that they don't teach you in history, and you have to look around for better accounts of the past, history is, as it always has been, writen by the victor.

You've just got to find the losers side to the story, was more to japans attack than a simple act of agression, it was an act of desperation, had it worked as planned things would have gone very diffrently.

[mad=dog]

Well the peculiar thing is that the Axis was not a true alliance. Japan didn't declare war on Russia either remember. They were not obliged to as Germany attacked first.
Germany declared war on their own accord and faced the consequences. Perhaps Hitler was swayed by the reasonable initial sinkings from u-boats into thinking that transport of troops across the Atlantic impossible. Naturally he was wrong.

The Axis was poor at coordinating their efforts. The Germans had excellent naval radar, but the Japanese had none! All those mighty ships and they were dependable on visual ranging equipment. Since we are playing with history one could also ask how things had fared if the Japanese capital ships had radar systems of similar quality to Bismark.

[Link]

The basic history everyone gets taught hardly shows the entire picture. To truly understand even a part of that picture you need to read more in depth research than just "A short history of nearly everything" or your average history school book.

The 'treaty' between Japan and Germany wasn't the same treaty as the treaties we saw in the years before World War I. They weren't bound together by mutual obligations, not in the slightest. I think it's safe to say Hitler's warmachine paid little or no attention to what happened with Hirohito in Asia.

[mad=dog]

I wondered how long it would take you to find this thread Link. Hope I haven't made any blatant mistakes this time [img]smile.gif[/img] . And I have read more than just a couple of mainstream books on the subject.

[Aragorn1]

I disagree with the fact that when the US entered germnay was doomed. If Russia could have beedn captured, Germany could have rivaled the power of the US, and it is questionable whether the US could have sustained a naval war on two fronts. Additionally, they would have developed the A-bomb first. So i think Russia is the true key question. And i believe that had Hitler not acted as he had in Stalingrad there would have been a good chance that they would have succeded. I believe the answers then is yes, Hitler would have won, or at least have conlcuded some kind of peace maybe? I haven't studied any theoretical figures on this so it is really just idle and uniformed specualation

[mad=dog]

Aragorn1 I'll support you with some information. First of all it wasn't Stalingrad. That was part of the 1942 campaign and at that time it was in my humble opinion a question about how long it would take to defeat Germany. A fighting retreat would have made Germany able to fight on for many years. Also many months worth of production was tossed away in Kursk. One can say that Stalingrad made sure that the Germans would never ever be able to win the war and Kursk made sure that they would loose completely.
To me any chance of winning the Russian campaign was in 1941. Guderian WAS within striking distance of Moscow with little opposition in his way when he was redirected in an attempt to close the Smolensk pocket - an undertaking that failed to succeed. Moscow is an important hub in Russia. Lines of communication and transport quite literally ran through the city. If the Germans had captured and secured the city it would have made military operations much easier to conduct - not to mention the enormous impact it would have had on morale on both sides.
Wether Russia would indeed have collapsed as a result of loosing Moscow is a matter of debate, but one thing is certain - the Germans could never hope to win if they did not capture the city.

EDIT: Removed the word "factual". Upon revision I must admit the information is highly speculative.

[ 06-30-2005, 05:46 AM: Message edited by: mad=dog ]

[Gangrell]

Originally posted by Q'alooaith: You've got to take into account the situation in Japan at the time though, they had no real choice but to attack. There's a lot that they don't teach you in history, and you have to look around for better accounts of the past, history is, as it always has been, writen by the victor. You've just got to find the losers side to the story, was more to japans attack than a simple act of agression, it was an act of desperation, had it worked as planned things would have gone very diffrently.

No, you have to understand that the Japanese in that time period didn't exactly have their heads on straight. They were the first to use the kamikazi pilots, they were responsible for the Rape of Nanking during their war with China where they actually had contests to see who could behead the most civilians. It was an act of agression.

Now, given the fact that the reason behind it was that the US cut of their oil supply I believe it was, I still think that since they were at war with another country, they could've put off bombing Pearl Harbor and bringing a super power into the war.

[Link]

Originally posted by mad=dog: I wondered how long it would take you to find this thread Link. Hope I haven't made any blatant mistakes this time [img]smile.gif[/img] . And I have read more than just a couple of mainstream books on the subject.

Your sense of humour is appalling, mad=dog, as is your historical knowledge. In fact, I think I'm going to report your post because of all that [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I know you've read more than one book on the subject, so rest assured, I won't flame you for being a total nitwit. It just irritates me to see all these people who think they know a great deal about a subject without actually doing so. And that's not the worse part: when you try to convince them that it's actually slightly (*cough*understatement*cough*) different than they think it is, they usually disregard it.

The pain! The humiliation! The endless frustration!

[ 06-30-2005, 06:45 AM: Message edited by: Link ]