Did the Axis powers even have a chance at winning in WW2...

If there was a chance, it was lost when the Wehrmacht was stopped at the gates of Moscow.

The only way to defeat the USSR as was analyzed was to finish it quickly, before the Soviets have the time to bring all their manpower and resources to bear for the war effort. Once the Soviets had a full war economy in place, it really was just a matter of time before Germany lost. The entry of the United States just further closed the deal as the resources and populations of entire continents were now devoted to defeating Germany and Japan.

The invasion of the Soviet Union was bound to happen. Germany launched Operation Barbarossa for 2 (two) reasons, namely, for the overthrowing of Bolshevism and the attaining of Autarky at the expense of eastern Europe. Had they succeeded, not only Germany would've destroyed Communism both ideologically and militarily, they would also use the newly acquired land to compete e c o n o m i c a l l y with the US. And I wouldn't call that an alternative cold-war, it wouldn't be one. Germany's aim was never to start revolutions throughout the world. Anyways, Germany would've won the economic race. Due to domestic stability, which is remarkable in a National Socialist regime compared to a capitalistic one, and superior scientists overall. This is the truth.

More than Germany was though.
>entire industrial north is devastated by thr fighting
>more of the population proportionally perishes through the war than any other great power
>emotionally wounded to the only point of always sidestepping reinforcing the army, favoring only pacifism and never changing from the tatics that won them the war
>doesn't even get a 10th of the reparations owed to them by Germany
If anyone had been crippled by the war, it had been them, Germany and Russia. Russia and Germany even less on some parameters.

The Japanese should have attacked the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941 (and not attack the US in Dec 1941). Then Soviet troops in Siberia won't be able to save Moscow from the Germans. That would end the war.

They didn't even have that option, what with all the bridges they burned pre-war.

They sure fucked up badly on their choice of allies.

He sure learned from it, the thing is, circumstances were way different after WWI.

The Japanese weren't able to stage a serious attack on the Soviet Union in 1941, with the bulk of their army fighting in China and their Navy gearing up for the land grabs in the Pacific Islands and war with the US, the last thing Japan needed was to fight three titans all at once.

Also Japan and the USSR fought a rather large scale border war in 1939, with over 100,000 men involved, and the Japanese were absolutely demolished by the Red Army at the battle of Khalkhin Gol, forcing Japan to accept a pact of non-aggression with the Soviets.

The Japanese attack Pearl Harbor in Dec 1941. The Germans attack Russia in June 1941. June is before December last time I checked.

Japan could have launched an attack on Russia. After all the Japanese attacked SE Asia while still fighting in China in 1942.

As for the Battle of Khalkin Gol, Soviet losses were higher than Japanese losses. So there's no reason to assume that the Japanese would be destroyed by the Soviets in 1941. Odds are that they could put up a decent fight.

Even if the Japanese lose in Siberia, the point is to tie up Soviet resources in the east long enough. That allows Germany to get to Moscow by winter of 1941.

>Even if the Japanese lose in Siberia, the point is to tie up Soviet resources in the east long enough. That allows Germany to get to Moscow by winter of 1941.

Not him, but you do realize that Soviet troop levels in the Far East Command went up from June to December 1941, not down, right?

Soviet resources in the east weren't particularly stripped to find troops to shovel near Moscow, and a Japanese attack wouldn't have done all that much to force a redirection of troops.

Oh, if that is true, then I may have to retract my case. I was told that Siberian troops came to save Moscow from the Germans in the winter of 1941.
Where can I find a book (or a reliable source) on Soviet troops levels rising in Siberia from June to Dec 1941?

Sorry for double posting but here's a web page that I just found. It seems legit.

operationbarbarossa.net/the-siberian-divisions-and-the-battle-for-moscow-in-1941-42/#Red Army Divisions Transferred West from June to July 1941
It doesn't show Soviet troop levels rising in the east. 28 divisions were moved from east to west.
So I thought my point might still stand.
But the new information this guy provides points to the simple overwhelming numbers that the Soviets could muster (over 220 new divisions mobilized in 2nd half of 1941). In which case there was no hope for the Axis no matter what they did (I recall the Germans deploying about 150 divisions for Barbarossa).

Their best option would've been to surrender earlier.

Germans had ~150 divisions, but there were also ~50 Axis allies divisions.

no. ww2 was not about building the 3rd reich. basically it was just a giant fundraiser for the nazis who left for argentina and left the german ppl with the bill.

First off, give a look at your link, and we have 14 divisions, not 28, moved from East to West. And of that, only 7 were in the "Far East" on June of 1941.

This, of course says nothing about other forces that were raised or transferred in from elsewhere. Unfortunately, most of the sources I've seen are in Russian. So for instance this

soldat.ru/doc/gko/text/0234.html

Has orders that the Ural and Middle Asian districts be mobilized and resources sent to the Far East. Unfortunately, digging up prime sources about what got mobilized where and when is difficult to piece together. About the only "short source" I have is from the Soviet official history of WW2, which I don't actually give a whole deal of credence to, since the Soviets lie about all sorts of shit in that and a lot of their other official documents.

Also, in regard to

>But the new information this guy provides points to the simple overwhelming numbers that the Soviets could muster (over 220 new divisions mobilized in 2nd half of 1941). In which case there was no hope for the Axis no matter what they did (I recall the Germans deploying about 150 divisions for Barbarossa).

Don't forget that a division isn't always equal to a division. Soviet cavalry divisions were brigades anywhere else. And even the infantry ones that were more or less normal sized generally weren't anywhere up to the same levels of training and discipline that the German forces had. Still, the notion that the Far East guys "saved the day" is something of a myth.

>I have an overly simplified view of history: The Post

>The Japanese should have attacked the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941 (and not attack the US in Dec 1941).

Shit like this always fails to take into account the million dollar question: What's in it for Japan? They're running out of oil fast due to the embargo, and considering Siberia's infrastructure (or the near-complete lack of it) and WW2-era oil drilling technology, there's no realistic way for them to exploit Siberian oil reserves... assuming that they even reach any of them, of course.

Sure, Japan attacking Soviet Union around the same time as Germany (an attack that the Germans didn't inform the Japanese of beforehand, by the way) would be great for Germany, but again, what's in it for Japan?

If hitler didn't launched operation barbarossa yes
They would have won

they shouödnt have invaded russia
of course, they still need oil, so they shoulda went for saudi arabia instead, much easier route