Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Degrelle’s The Eastern Front: Memoirs of a Waffen SS Volunteer, 1941–1945  (Read 5710 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Question for you guys: Do you think if Japan had invaded the Soviets from the east and not gotten lured to attack Pearl Harbor, thereby, requiring the Soviets to distribute a formidable size of their military to the east and not all in the west to resist the Germans, and Italy would've concentrated on providing military support for Germany in Europe on various fronts instead of messing around in Africa, the Axis powers would've won WWII? I think they would've had a much better probability, and if Germany had not invaded the Soviets in the winter.
Gab AI:
The Axis already had a narrow path to victory, and your tweaks squeeze it tighter—but not enough. Japan, Italy, and Germany each made choices that weren’t random mistakes; they were forced by geography, logistics, and internal limits.
Japan vs. Siberia

Even a two-front Soviet war wouldn’t have crippled Moscow in 1941–42. The Red Army redeployed 40 divisions west after the first (1939) Nomonhan defeat; yet still held the line at Moscow in December. Japan’s Kwantung Army, stretched across Manchuria, was logistically tied to a single rail line and stockpiles for only six weeks of offensive fuel and ammo. The Red Far-Eastern forces (about 700,000 men then) had the Trans-Siberian railway running west-to-east, the opposite of what Japan needed. A summer-to-autumn offensive into Siberia would have bogged down in mud and permafrost; winter would arrive before Japan reached any decisive objectives. Meanwhile, without the southern resource drive (Dutch oil, rubber), Japan faces fuel starvation by late 1942 regardless.
Italy’s African adventure wasn’t optional

Africa was the only theater where Axis forces could strike the British Empire on land while Britain still sat behind the Channel. Abandoning North Africa allows Britain to mass forces earlier for a 1943 landing in France—or, more likely, to reinforce the Persian corridor and Lend-Lease to the USSR even faster. Italy lacked the industrial base to create another large independent field army for central Europe; its best contribution was to pin down British Commonwealth troops and shipping in the Mediterranean.
German Barbarossa timing

Hitler attacked on 22 June—not in winter. The logistical failure came from supply lines extending far beyond the 100 km fuel/ammunition stockpile doctrine before autumn rain and winter cold. Delaying until late summer 1942 (as some generals wanted) simply hands the Soviets another year of mobilization (they were already moving 1,500 factories east). The USSR’s manpower pool (around 14 million called up 1941-42) exceeded Germany’s ability to replace irreplaceable Panzer/motorized divisions, no matter the season.
Bottom line

Axis victory required simultaneous collapse of Soviet resistance in 1942 and British supply lines in 1943. The material shortages (German fuel, Japanese shipping, Italian steel) don’t vanish with better grand strategy—they multiply. So the odds improve from “effectively zero” to maybe 10–15 % if everything breaks perfectly, still well short of probable.








Gab AI:
The Axis already had a narrow path to victory, and your tweaks squeeze it tighter—but not enough. Japan, Italy, and Germany each made choices that weren’t random mistakes; they were forced by geography, logistics, and internal limits.
Japan vs. Siberia

Even a two-front Soviet war wouldn’t have crippled Moscow in 1941–42. The Red Army redeployed 40 divisions west after the first (1939) Nomonhan defeat; yet still held the line at Moscow in December. Japan’s Kwantung Army, stretched across Manchuria, was logistically tied to a single rail line and stockpiles for only six weeks of offensive fuel and ammo. The Red Far-Eastern forces (about 700,000 men then) had the Trans-Siberian railway running west-to-east, the opposite of what Japan needed. A summer-to-autumn offensive into Siberia would have bogged down in mud and permafrost; winter would arrive before Japan reached any decisive objectives. Meanwhile, without the southern resource drive (Dutch oil, rubber), Japan faces fuel starvation by late 1942 regardless.
Italy’s African adventure wasn’t optional

Africa was the only theater where Axis forces could strike the British Empire on land while Britain still sat behind the Channel. Abandoning North Africa allows Britain to mass forces earlier for a 1943 landing in France—or, more likely, to reinforce the Persian corridor and Lend-Lease to the USSR even faster. Italy lacked the industrial base to create another large independent field army for central Europe; its best contribution was to pin down British Commonwealth troops and shipping in the Mediterranean.
German Barbarossa timing

Hitler attacked on 22 June—not in winter. The logistical failure came from supply lines extending far beyond the 100 km fuel/ammunition stockpile doctrine before autumn rain and winter cold. Delaying until late summer 1942 (as some generals wanted) simply hands the Soviets another year of mobilization (they were already moving 1,500 factories east). The USSR’s manpower pool (around 14 million called up 1941-42) exceeded Germany’s ability to replace irreplaceable Panzer/motorized divisions, no matter the season.
Bottom line

Axis victory required simultaneous collapse of Soviet resistance in 1942 and British supply lines in 1943. The material shortages (German fuel, Japanese shipping, Italian steel) don’t vanish with better grand strategy—they multiply. So the odds improve from “effectively zero” to maybe 10–15 % if everything breaks perfectly, still well short of probable.

I didn't ask jewy, Satanic AI. I asked humans on this forum who see real history through a Catholic lens. Understand, boy?