Which Axis country in World War II had the most military potential and might?

[CDN87]

Which country that formed the axis powers (Nazi Garmany, Italy, Japan) had the most capable military capable of doing the most damage to the allies?

I thought Japan gave the US, Britain, and China a rough ride. They managed to claim all of eastern Asia and parts of the Middle East. The Nazis couldn't conquer Russia and failed miserably in their bombing raids of the UK. So, I think it's far to conclude that Japan was more of a threat than Nazi germany. I mean, it took two nukes to stop Japan. It didn't take much to stop the Nazis.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

It didn't take much to stop the Nazis.

I think you need to do a little more reading. It took a huge effort by many nations to stop the Nazis. The Japanese were pretty much defeated by their losses at the Battle of Midway, though it took a few more bloody years to prove it to them. I admit it's still arguable, but a good case can be made that dropping the nuclear weapons on Japan served only to obviate the need for a bloody invasion of the Japanese home islands, they'd lost long before that and many of them knew it. The atomic bombs also probably had political purposes other than defeating Japan. They were partly a demonstration to the USSR of what the Allies, and America in particular, could do to people who continued to piss them off.

 

[snowles]

The Germans had much better technology and access to raw materials, while the Japenese had much better manpower. Both were incredibly skilled, determined, and had the cahones to do what they did. I don't think - no, I know - it's not as easy as you are making it out to be. Keep in mind that Germany had just lost an entire generation of men, and had their lands decimated, not 20 years before. Their ascension so quickly from ruins, based almost purely on shame and propelled by a booming mineral trade, is to this day an unprecedented phenomonen.

As someone who studied history (particularly War and Society) for one of my minors, I wonder how long the two countries' amicable relationship would have lasted, had the war continued on both fronts for an extended period. Had Germany actually conquered Russia, I would not have been surprised to see the Japanese turn their attention to the Western Theatre and try to fight them off.

And Dex is right, the nuke was as political a weapon as it was a wartime weapon; it meant as a signal to try and prevent future power struggles like this from occurring. Funny enough, after WW2, the US has really been the only true superpower, so it must have been effective.

You definitely need to read up, there are some excellent books out there detailing the leadups to the Second World War and the true effects it had on Western Europe. The best place to start would be finding some books about the Treaty of Versailles and its ramifications: many of these books put its consequences into context of the second stage of Germany's wars. PM if you are interested; I wrote (a very long and boring) paper a couple of years ago arguing for and against Versailles' equitible treatment to the Germans, and its resulting effects. It also shows just how crushed the Germans were after the Great War, first by the war itself, then by Versailles.

 

[snowles]

Keep in mind both Germany and Japan were both in the infant stages of a campaign on North American soil. The German U-Boats were well documented in the St. Lawrence seaway (and having 22 confirmed wrecks in Canadian waters, at a cost of 340 lives), while numerous Japanese balloon bombs (more than 300) were known to have floated over the US and Canada, a couple of them actually killing people.

Another thing, I had just remembered I also wrote a very long winded paper on, is that while German forces failed in their attempts at bombing, they almost completely succeeded in literally starving the British homeland until 1944, by cutting off food transportation to a country who relied almost exclusively on imports.

 

[sanctus]

I think you need to do a little more reading. It took a huge effort by many nations to stop the Nazis. .

That is certainly an understatement! Most historians assume that had Germany not turned it's attention to the Soviet Union, they'd have easily invaded England. But besides that, any nation that could, in essence, escalate a situation to which eventually most of the world was at war is, historically, impressive.

 

[tamarin]

The Nazis were impressive. They just bit off a little too much to chew. It is interesting to speculate what would have happened if Hitler had had his head about him and not invaded Russia. And it is interesting too to wonder how the war would have gone in '42 and '43 if the Japanese hadn't forced the US in. I wonder how long the US would have stayed out without that provocation in late 1941. I'm surprised they stayed out that long in WWII given their contemporary attitude towards tyranny.

 

[thomaska]

Adolf and the Nazis were 70 years too late. With todays climate of weenies and appeasement fans, The Wermacht would roll through Europe and Democratic States in the U.S. without so much as a shot being fired.

 

[tamarin]

Who knows? It is a troubling question: would the US have stayed out if Britain fell?

 

[tamarin]

And then there are the cranks and old conspiracy nuts who insisted Germany and the US had almost reached a deal on spheres of hegemony before the Japanese crashed the party.

 

[Blackleaf]

Funny enough, after WW2, the US has really been the only true superpower

And the USSR.

 

[Blackleaf]

That is certainly an understatement! Most historians assume that had Germany not turned it's attention to the Soviet Union, they'd have easily invaded England.

Yeah, they'd have easily got those tanks across the Channel.

 

[sanctus]

Yeah, they'd have easily got those tanks across the Channel.

Theye did have use of a navy too, you know. Plans were already underway to transport the Royal Family and government officials to Canada. That is how sure the British government was that the Germans were coming. Germany would've lost, in the end, because what they didn't understand was the massive Commonwealth support for the mother country. From Canada, the British would've fought on, with the continued support of the Commonwealth.

 

[tamarin]

Sanctus, if Britain had fallen, and fallen with the best that Canadian support was able then to deliver, I don't see the Commonwealth as being then in a position to successfully oppose Germany. And if the US had failed to enter, history indeed might have written a much different story.

 

[sanctus]

Sanctus, if Britain had fallen, and fallen with the best that Canadian support was able then to deliver, I don't see the Commonwealth as being then in a position to successfully oppose Germany. And if the US had failed to enter, history indeed might have written a much different story.

Well, the rest of the Commonwealth had the advantage of distance from Europe. Given the technology of the time, the Germans would've never been able to engage a large force across the ocean for an invasion. Mind you, as time and technology went on, God alone knows what might have happened!

 

[snowles]

The Nazis were impressive. They just bit off a little too much to chew. It is interesting to speculate what would have happened if Hitler had had his head about him and not invaded Russia. And it is interesting too to wonder how the war would have gone in '42 and '43 if the Japanese hadn't forced the US in. I wonder how long the US would have stayed out without that provocation in late 1941. I'm surprised they stayed out that long in WWII given their contemporary attitude towards tyranny.

I agree; had the Japanese turned their attention down south, they certainly had the advantage against being able to attack the retreating Russians. They really chose wrong with Pearl Harbor; though I believe had Russia fell, they would have eventually engaged in war with Germany anyways.

 

[snowles]

And the USSR.

But it took the USSR a good, long time to rebuild after the war; the land was decimated, the country was in ruins and tens of millions were dead. Even during its peak the US had a lot more to lose in a cold war than Russia did; much of the USSR was still mired in WW2-era infastructure and decay, while the US was completely untouched and in a position of extreme wealth coming off Allied war debts and war machine manufacturing.

At its peak, the USSR was military might, and nothing else economically until the mid-70s; even that levelled off (and then petered out) by the beginning of the 80s.