Why did Germany lose WW2?

[papasha40]

I agree that a long term peace between the Germany and Russia would have spelled doom for Britian. However, Zukhov had crafted a plan to invade Germany and Russia was preparing to implement it when German initiated Barbarossa. This IMHO is why Germany was so successful initially as the Russians were caught by surprise in their assembly areas.

I am coming late to this forum and wish to add a few more comments.

1. I believe that had Hitler allowed Hoth and Guderian to complete their attack on Moscow, before drawing down their forces to attack the Crimea, this would have significantly impacted Russias morale and ability to counterattack in the Winter.

2. Hitler placed too much faith in Goering's promise to win the Battle of Britain. The focus of the Luftwaffe should have been the destruction of the RAF, not city bombing.

3. Germany was planning Sealion as a really wide river crossing. They should have concentrated on elimiating the RAF, then the Royal Navy, then worried about Sealion.

4. Hitler should have let slip Guderians leash and allowed him to destroy the BEF at Dunkirk. Remeber that both France and the BEF were still reeling from the gains that Guderian had made. One of the reasons that Guderian was so successful was that, unlike the French and British commanders, he did not tie his armored forces to the infantry. That in addition to motorization and mechanization of supporting forces significantly added to the mobility of the formations attacking in the West.

5. Germany should have done a better job at planning Barbaroosa. After their successes in the West, Hitler and the General Staff felt that Barbarossa would be concluded before the onset of the Russian winter. They did not follow the axiom "Plan for the worst and hope for the best." If they did, their troops would have had the winterclothing and replacement parts that were needed to continue Barabarossa through the winter.

I certainly agree with you when you say Moscow should have been taken first. Not only would this impact Morale as you suggest, but it also cuts the western part of Russia in half. Moscow was the communication hub at the time and the north viz: Leningrad, and the south around Sevastopol wouldn't know what was really happening. You can flip a coin to drive your forces north or south. The idea is to attack en masse. It's like he never learned a thing from his victory's in the west
.
And yes there were all sorts of plans for an attack on the Germans, but thats all they were, just plans. There is nothing in any historical reading or studying the atlases of war at that time which suggests Stalin was planning to attack Germany. Not in 1941 and not in 1942 and 3. The man actually went out of his way to not offend the Germans. Stalin unlike Hitler was under no illusions of some great crusade like the Nazi's saw Barbarossa. He knew he was a dictator who had an agreement with another dictator and the idea of eventually getting India kept him euphoric

Of couse the luftwaffe should have kept going after the radar and the air-bases, as well as the airforce industry. Why it stopped and the larger city's were bombed instead is a very funny story in itself. You have probably heard it many times, so i'll omit.

Actually I agree with Raedar, Manstein, and Rommel who seemed to be the first to realize England and eventually the Soviet Union could be conquered by taking North africa and especialy the Suez Canal. Poor Rommel was constantly under-strengthed and there were many more panzer divisions and mororized infantry available. Hitler refused to let Rommel use more than one panzer division and two infantry. It wasn't enough. But with the taking of North Africa, the rest of the middle east is quite easily accessible. Palestine Syria, Iran and once the island of Malta is taken The Mediterranian becomes an Axis lake. The entire war picture is different.

I believe Sea- Lion would be incredibly hard to pull off. My reason is because of 2 letters RN

 

[HokieMSG]

A friend of mine told me about the Zhukov plan. Apparently it was discovered when the KGB declassified a bunch of documents. He told me that it was published but I have been unable to find anything about it. If I find a source I will post it.

I also believe that Hitler was too concerned with destroying the Russian armies. Add this to the fact that he kept changing his mind about what the German Army strategy should be, influenced German's loss of the war.

As far as Sealion was concerned the RN would not have been a threat had the Luftwaffe targeted it before commencing the operation. IMHO elimination or reduction of the RN was instrumental to a successful invasion.

 

[papasha40]

A friend of mine told me about the Zhukov plan. Apparently it was discovered when the KGB declassified a bunch of documents. He told me that it was published but I have been unable to find anything about it. If I find a source I will post it.

I also believe that Hitler was too concerned with destroying the Russian armies. Add this to the fact that he kept changing his mind about what the German Army strategy should be, influenced German's loss of the war.

As far as Sealion was concerned the RN would not have been a threat had the Luftwaffe targeted it before commencing the operation. IMHO elimination or reduction of the RN was instrumental to a successful invasion.

I still believe Sea-Lion would be near impossible to pull off. You mention the removal of the Royal Navy as if it would have been a slight inconvenience, but very do-able. I'm not so sure it could be done. The RN compared to the rest of Europe in 1940 was awesome.
And let us suppose, the luftwaffe did manage to bring British airplane construction to a standstill, what do you think the commonwealth country's were doing up to this point. I'm too lazy at the moment to get into exact numbers but I do know the spitfire and hurricane were being produced in quite sustancial numbers. Canada along with Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India to name a few were volunteering soldiers and armour and most importantly air-craft and munitions.

So lets even go further with your idea about Sea-Lion. If by some miracle the Nazi's attack and take Great Britain, the Gov. would fight from Canada. And there is no way in hell Hitler could have invaded Canada. I also believe if Great Britain was taken the USA would have gotten into the war a little earlier.

I also don't doubt that there was a Zhukov plan for taking on the Germans. The question is, does it mean anything. From Stalins own actions I doubt it. The Russians were still sending raw materials and food to Germany while it was being attacked. All I can say is What is wrong with this picture?

 

[HokieMSG]

I still believe Sea-Lion would be near impossible to pull off. You mention the removal of the Royal Navy as if it would have been a slight inconvenience, but very do-able. I'm not so sure it could be done. The RN compared to the rest of Europe in 1940 was awesome.
And let us suppose, the luftwaffe did manage to bring British airplane construction to a standstill, what do you think the commonwealth country's were doing up to this point. I'm too lazy at the moment to get into exact numbers but I do know the spitfire and hurricane were being produced in quite sustancial numbers. Canada along with Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India to name a few were volunteering soldiers and armour and most importantly air-craft and munitions.

So lets even go further with your idea about Sea-Lion. If by some miracle the Nazi's attack and take Great Britain, the Gov. would fight from Canada. And there is no way in hell Hitler could have invaded Canada. I also believe if Great Britain was taken the USA would have gotten into the war a little earlier.

I also don't doubt that there was a Zhukov plan for taking on the Germans. The question is, does it mean anything. From Stalins own actions I doubt it. The Russians were still sending raw materials and food to Germany while it was being attacked. All I can say is What is wrong with this picture.

I do in fact agree with you that there would be significant, difficult challenges for Germany to implement Sealion. I also believe that it would take more than just the Luftwaffe to reduce the RN. I'm thinking a complete blockade of the home island by U-Boats, along with massive targeting of their port facilities and infrastructure supporting the ports.

If Germany did infact occupy the home island they would at least be secure on that front because, in spite of the industrial might of the US, they would likely be unable to mount a successful operation on the European mainland. Don;t forget that the Allies worked for many months training and stockpiling supplies prior to Overlord. Finally we all know just how close the Germans came to beating the Allies back.

I don;t think Sealion would be a walkover, I merely suggest that without the elimination of the Royal Navy, Germany would be unable to have a successful invasion.

 

[BritinBritain]

I don;t think Sealion would be a walkover, I merely suggest that without the elimination of the Royal Navy, Germany would be unable to have a successful invasion.

In my opinion you are 100% correct, if however, there had been an invasion of the British mainland it would not have been a walkover. There were many WW1 vets in UK, who as I have stated before, were not 18 or 19 years old, but were fit, had the knowledge and the ability to fight back and fight back hard.

 

[LeEnfield]

If Hitler had attacked Britain as soon as he had captured France he might just have pulled it it off. The German Armies need a break to re-equip and rearm also the Luftwaffe need to ready the French airfields for their use and get all the spares to these along with the ground crews. During these couple of months huge defences in depth were built all along the south coast and the whole of the war machine then started to go into over drive. Pill boxes, tank traps and huge road blocks were built all over the place, and ever man and woman except for the women with young children had to put there name down for work. Women were sent all over the country to work in factories regardless of what they thought their status was. Other women were sent into the country to work as farm labourers and produce every ounce of food that they could. You really needed to be there to understand just what went on and the efforts made by the people to keep this land free.

 

[MontyB]

1. I believe that had Hitler allowed Hoth and Guderian to complete their attack on Moscow, before drawing down their forces to attack the Crimea, this would have significantly impacted Russias morale and ability to counterattack in the Winter.

I really don't agree here, the problem as I see it is that in taking Moscow they would have over extended themselves and left a large salient to the north leading back to Leningrad and a huge salient in the south leading to Kiev which was packed with something like 9 Russian armies.

It is my belief that had Germany driven on to Moscow the resulting Russian winter counter attack would have come through these two salients and more than likely destroyed Army Group Center on 1941, all you would have ended up with is a Stalingrad scenario based around Moscow.

5. Germany should have done a better job at planning Barbaroosa. After their successes in the West, Hitler and the General Staff felt that Barbarossa would be concluded before the onset of the Russian winter. They did not follow the axiom "Plan for the worst and hope for the best." If they did, their troops would have had the winterclothing and replacement parts that were needed to continue Barabarossa through the winter.

As far as I understand they did plan well, the problem was that the Greeks kicked the crap out of the Italians and Barbarossa had to be delayed for 6 weeks while Germany rescued Italy, as far as winter clothing went it was available but the lack of Russian infrastructure meant that decisions had to made at the main supply depots of what could be sent forward using the limited transport available.

As was quoted in one documentary recently "German supply officers had to decide whether to send winter clothing, ammunition, medical supplies, reinforcements or food, they could send a lot of one or a little of all but not enough in case to meet requirements".

 

[Doppleganger]

I agree that a long term peace between the Germany and Russia would have spelled doom for Britian. However, Zukhov had crafted a plan to invade Germany and Russia was preparing to implement it when German initiated Barbarossa. This IMHO is why Germany was so successful initially as the Russians were caught by surprise in their assembly areas.

This viewpoint is slightly contentious and I don't know whether the Red Army was planning a pre-emptive strike as early as 1941. As Glantz stated the Red Army at that time was mid-way through a huge reorganization of their entire army structure - 1941 may have been too early but I agree that Stalin would have attacked Hitler at some point.

I am coming late to this forum and wish to add a few more comments.

Welcome, and thanks for your intelligent comments.

1. I believe that had Hitler allowed Hoth and Guderian to complete their attack on Moscow, before drawing down their forces to attack the Crimea, this would have significantly impacted Russias morale and ability to counterattack in the Winter.

Do you mean the Ukraine and Kiev? The Crimea was just too far away to be impacted by the decision to force Guderian south, unless you mean by way of domino effect. For the record I believe that Hitler's decision to capture Kiev first instead of Moscow was militarily sound, even though it may have been the wrong decision.

2. Hitler placed too much faith in Goering's promise to win the Battle of Britain. The focus of the Luftwaffe should have been the destruction of the RAF, not city bombing.

Agreed but one thing in Hitler's defence was that his views on city bombing as a means to bring a nation to its knees was shared by almost every strategic bombing expert at the time.

3. Germany was planning Sealion as a really wide river crossing. They should have concentrated on elimiating the RAF, then the Royal Navy, then worried about Sealion.

Agreed which is why they initiated the Battle of Britain. However, I think that Hitler knew deep down that Sealion was practically impossible.

4. Hitler should have let slip Guderians leash and allowed him to destroy the BEF at Dunkirk. Remeber that both France and the BEF were still reeling from the gains that Guderian had made. One of the reasons that Guderian was so successful was that, unlike the French and British commanders, he did not tie his armored forces to the infantry. That in addition to motorization and mechanization of supporting forces significantly added to the mobility of the formations attacking in the West.

Agreed but I think a combination of Goering's claims and Hitler's fears for his beloved panzers in an urban area made up his mind. He might have remembered the assault on Warsaw in 1939 where the panzers did not do well at all in the city streets.

5. Germany should have done a better job at planning Barbaroosa. After their successes in the West, Hitler and the General Staff felt that Barbarossa would be concluded before the onset of the Russian winter. They did not follow the axiom "Plan for the worst and hope for the best." If they did, their troops would have had the winterclothing and replacement parts that were needed to continue Barabarossa through the winter.

They were vastly overconfident and critically underestimated both the Red Army's ability to put fresh armies in the field and the individual Soviet soldier's will to resist.

 

[Easy-8]

1. The early political stages and arming the Wehrmacht were conducting reasonably well. Austria and Czechoslovakia were taken without a fight. Poland fought back hard but with no success and the USSR took over Eastern Poland. However the Third Reich failed to began full war production and total mobilization after both France and Britian declared war on them. Hitler should have ordered full mobilization of Germany after the invasion of the USSR on 6/22/41 and not a day later.

2. Ending the war in France in 6 weeks was stunning victory made possible by Heinz Guderian, Erich von Manstein and the soldiers of the Wehrmacht, however it is not without its flaws. Rundstedt and Hitler ignored Guderian when he wanted a trust to destroy the BEF at Dunkirk. The 300,000 man strong BEF was sitting there running back to the UK in pure panic and this juicy golden target was let go. If they had captured the BEF it would have been a massive blow to the British war effort 300,000 captured would have depleted British manpower reserves and moral. The UK would probably have sued for peace if the BEF had been lost. Thus resulting in a total victory for Germany in the West.

3. During the Battle of Britain Göring ordered The Luftwaffe to stop targeting RAF airfields and industrial plants to attacking British cities. This only strengthened the British resolve to fight and win. The British Empire was the largest oversea empire ever created. However it was dying and not that strong. If Germany had just kept pounding Britian with air raid after air raid the RAF would slowly but surely give way and Operation Sealion could begin, I think the British ground forces could have put a huge dint in the invasion force but I don't think they could have defeated the Wehrmacht.

4. Trusting Italy to secure Africa and the Balkans was a mistake as well. The Italians had launched a invasion of Southern France during the 6 week battle there and did very poorly. This was a campaign that the German High Command and most people today seem to pay no attention to. The resources wasted (Afrika Korps, Balkans campaign) to undo Italian failures were great in number. The campaign in Africa could have been avoided completely and the Balkan campaign could have been over much sooner. Germany would have been better off not allying itself with Mussolini's Italy and going it alone or sending in German advisors to build the Italian military.

5. Operation Barbarossa was launched before Britain was taken care of thus beginning a two front war. The Wehrmacht won victory after victory on the stepp destroying whole Soviet Fronts with minimal losses Kiev alone yielded well over 600,000 Soviets killed or captured. However Barbarossa displayed Blitzkriegs main and pretty much only flaw. IF IT FAILS THERE IS ALMOST NEVER A PLAN B. And thus Germany found itself in a long war that it was not prepared for. Hitler also sent troops away from Army Group CenterTo Ukraine and Leningrad (Leningrad could have been in German hands but Hitler ordered the Wehrmacht NOT to enter the city). The Germans had not been issued winter clothing before the infamous general winter came into play. Germany as was stated earlier was not ready for a long war.

 

[Easy-8]

6. Germany then declared war on the United States. This was a massive mistake on Hitler's part. Germany was not required under the Tripartite Pact to do this and tossed its free ride to avoiding war with US down the trash. Germany could have gotten Japan to attack the Soviet forces in Eastern Siberia thus forcing Stalin and RKKA to leave Moscow pretty much defenseless. Germany and Japan pretty much did their own thing through out much of the war they pretty much weren't allies at all.

7. A year later with the offensive on Stalingrad in full swing Hitler sent the Wehrmacht after two objectives the industrial powerhouse of Stalingrad and the oil fields of Caucasus. The whole offensive lost its power when it went after the two targets when it only had enough power to achieve a single objective. When Georgi Zhukov launched Operation Uranus Hitler foolishly ordered Paulus to hold Stalingrad the 6th Army had a chance to escape but Hitler turned it down and 300,000 troops of the 6th Army were lost as a result. Those 300,000 men could have come in handy in the operations on the Eastern Front yet to come...

8. Kursk was another blunder on Germany's part. victory after Stalingrad was not possible but if the Wehrmacht had went on the defensive and stayed there Germany might have achieved a stand still. refusing Manstein's plan to pimp slap the Red Army after the victory at Kharkov he went onto attack Kursk. He might have been able to win Kursk if he had kept up the the fire around Prokhorovka. Hitler allowed the Afrika Korps and Italian forces to be destroyed in North Africa, they could have come in handy in defending Sicily and Italy from the invasions that were about too take place. As Rommel later said failing to stop the Western Allies at the beach really screwed things for them up... badly....

9. The Normandy Invasion could have been fought off if Hitler had not been asleep and Rommel visiting his wife. This left the mighty Panzer Divisions halted as the allied infantry stormed the beach. As the US, British and other allies dashed across France the Soviets launched Operation Bagration which took out ArmyGroupCenter and led to a advance all the way to outskirts of Warsaw. This was due to ArmyGroupCenter being deployed way too far forward and failing to place a commander with some talent (they later did after the damage had been done).

10. By the end of the war Germany was fighting a four front war:

1. Eastern Front
2. Western Front
3. Italian Front
4. Genocide against various peoples

the forth was counter productive in every shape and form. It destroyed many potential allies such as the Ukrainians, Baltic peoples and jewish geniuses it wasted a massive amount of resources and manpower into this pointless and self defeating task. The path to victory lay not in a single massive war but in a number of wars one by one paving the way to victory. Hitler also appointed more people who were intuned with his ideas (ie 'yes' men) such as Himmler, Göring and others to field commands. especially towards the end. He put the ME 262 project coulda had it out in 1942 but Herr Meyer (Hermann Göring) and Hitler didn't like it... This is due to a massive amount of oversight by Hitler. He should have put some time into building a strategic bomber force so he could reach industry which was outta the reach of his short range tactical dive bombers. His ego simply got to big for Germany's good he believed he was unstoppable (who can really blame him? The Wehrmacht was doing the impossible time and time again!) and the result led to disaster

 

[perseus]

An excellent list Easy. Agree with all of these points except possibly this one.

If Germany had just kept pounding Britian with air raid after air raid the RAF would slowly but surely give way and Operation Sealion could begin, I think the British ground forces could have put a huge dint in the invasion force but I don't think they could have defeated the Wehrmacht.

The air force got most of the credit for saving Britain, but in fact the navy formed the main barrier, including the MTBs which would have been difficult to take out by the air. You also have to be aware of the rudementary landing craft available to the Germans, many were just river barges and would have been quickly made into mince meat by any sustained naval attack. With regard to the RAF, Dowding had the sense not to commit all of his forces (and was subsequently sacked for this) but this made it difficult for the Luftwaffe to eliminate the RAF since much of it was effectively beyond it's range and could have been released for any attempted landing. Simulated wargames after the war suggested that the Germans could not sustain any meaningful supply of materiel over the channel and the attackers would not have been able to move far inland.

 

[blackeagle]

in my openion,it is well known that germany lost ww2 coz of hitlar's arrogance.he had an excessive pride of his mighty army,therefore he launched barbarosa operation against soviet union in a very bad time and under very bad conditions.it was the beginning of his end.in fact russians proved to the world and history how powerfull,strong and courgeous they are.
i respect them.....

 

[MontyB]

it was the beginning of his end.in fact russians proved to the world and history how powerfull,strong and courgeous they are.
i respect them.....

To be honest I think the Russians proved that to the world when they defeated Napoleon's Grand Armee in 1812, in both cases it was proved that the Russian military were able to be defeated on the battlefield but when used in conjunction with a scortched earth policy and the vast open spaces Russia was unbeatable.

The interesting thing is that in both cases the campaigns started badly for the Russians because they refused to give up territory for time and once that policy stopped both invasions went down hill rapidly.

 

[Del Boy]

To be honest I think the Russians proved that to the world when they defeated Napoleon's Grand Armee in 1812, in both cases it was proved that the Russian military were able to be defeated on the battlefield but when used in conjunction with a scortched earth policy and the vast open spaces Russia was unbeatable.

Yes, + Generals Janvier and Fevrier .

 

[papasha40]

Yes, + Generals Janvier and Fevrier .

DelBoy, Aside from the Russian winter, the decision to attack the Soviet Union when he did, proves one thing. Hitler was no strategic genius which many believed and some still believe he was. He was full of himself. He was a vain-glorious little man who took credit for stategy he had nothing to do with. His repulsive ethno-centric and racist views, along with a ridiculous Nazi ideology which ensconced a bullying and brutality worshipping philosophy upon the German people; caused Germany's eventual collapse many years before the actual hostilities.

I believe 4 things did more to bring about the Nazi defeat than anything else. The 1st is Hitler's racial nonsense which took so much raw material and human resources away from his pool of potential military attributes. The 2nd was Barbarrossa. The 3rd was his incredibly stupid declaration of war on the United States after Pearl harbour. His 4th must surely be his belief, he was the greatest military genius of all time. Not letting his much more learned military leaders run the war was a folly, only a totally insane man would do.

 

[Doppleganger]

DelBoy, Aside from the Russian winter, the decision to attack the Soviet Union when he did, proves one thing. Hitler was no strategic genius which many believed and some still believe he was. He was full of himself. He was a vain-glorious little man who took credit for stategy he had nothing to do with. His repulsive ethno-centric and racist views, along with a ridiculous Nazi ideology which ensconced a bullying and brutality worshipping philosophy upon the German people; caused Germany's eventual collapse many years before the actual hostilities.

The reason that Hitler attacked the Soviet Union was really for ideological reasons rather than anything else. In fact, the whole basis of the Nazi regime, based as it was on anti-semitism and the premise that the Aryan was intrinsically superior, meant that German grand strategy for the entire war was deeply flawed.

Hitler was no strategic genius but there were very few in the German High Command who were, and I include Manstein and Guderian in that number. The German way of war, enshrined since the reforms of Scharnhorst, was to wage war at the operational and tactical level. In this, the Germans were supreme and Hitler actually had pretty good instincts at the operational level. What really caused the Germans problems was Hitler's insistence to micro-manage operations after the defeat at Moscow. Of course, it was impossible for one man to do this and thus the German war effort suffered.

BTW, the Russian winter was not the reason why Germany failed to capture Moscow in 1941. The weather, in theory, affected the Red Army just as much as it did the Wehrmacht, although the Soviets did have the advantage of shortened lines of communication and supply.

I believe 4 things did more to bring about the Nazi defeat than anything else. The 1st is Hitler's racial nonsense which took so much raw material and human resources away from his pool of potential military attributes. The 2nd was Barbarrossa. The 3rd was his incredibly stupid declaration of war on the United States after Pearl harbour. His 4th must surely be his belief, he was the greatest military genius of all time. Not letting his much more learned military leaders run the war was a folly, only a totally insane man would do.

I fully agree with your first three points but have to disagree with the 4th. In the beginning, before the defeat at Moscow and before the onset of Parkinson's Disease, Hitler was a fairly dynamic leader with good instincts about how a future war would play out. It was Hitler who encouraged Guderian and others to develop the Panzerwaffe when the General Staff said that tanks were just a novelty and that nothing could replace artillery and cavalry as the main winners of any war. It was Hitler who rubber-stamped Manstein's 'sickle cut' plan for the invasion of France. Many of the German High Command, after the rapid defeat of France, were just as guilty as Hitler for getting carried away in Russia. It should also be noted that it was only after 1941 that Hitler really began to distrust his generals.

Finally, the famed German generals who survived the war (Guderian, Manstein etc) inevitably painted Hitler as mainly responsible for Germany's defeat and built up and coloured their own roles in the war. Anyone reading these memiors (and I'm a big fan of the likes of Guderian and Manstein) should weigh up the fact that dead men can't defend themselves.

 

[perseus]

the Russian winter was not the reason why Germany failed to capture Moscow in 1941. The weather, in theory, affected the Red Army just as much as it did the Wehrmacht, although the Soviets did have the advantage of shortened lines of communication and supply.

So was the lack of winter clothing, weapons lubricated with grease of the incorrect viscosity, the narrow tracks on the tanks, and the general lack of conditioning of the troops for colder weather (relative to the Russian counterparts) myths, or just exaggerated?

In addition surely the Russians could rely on their rail network for communications, wereas the Germans were reliant on the muddy roads (the rail guage having to be changed being different to Western nations)

 

[papasha40]

The reason that Hitler attacked the Soviet Union was really for ideological reasons rather than anything else. In fact, the whole basis of the Nazi regime, based as it was on anti-semitism and the premise that the Aryan was intrinsically superior, meant that German grand strategy for the entire war was deeply flawed.

Hitler was no strategic genius but there were very few in the German High Command who were, and I include Manstein and Guderian in that number. The German way of war, enshrined since the reforms of Scharnhorst, was to wage war at the operational and tactical level. In this, the Germans were supreme and Hitler actually had pretty good instincts at the operational level. What really caused the Germans problems was Hitler's insistence to micro-manage operations after the defeat at Moscow. Of course, it was impossible for one man to do this and thus the German war effort suffered.

BTW, the Russian winter was not the reason why Germany failed to capture Moscow in 1941. The weather, in theory, affected the Red Army just as much as it did the Wehrmacht, although the Soviets did have the advantage of shortened lines of communication and supply.


I fully agree with your first three points but have to disagree with the 4th. In the beginning, before the defeat at Moscow and before the onset of Parkinson's Disease, Hitler was a fairly dynamic leader with good instincts about how a future war would play out. It was Hitler who encouraged Guderian and others to develop the Panzerwaffe when the General Staff said that tanks were just a novelty and that nothing could replace artillery and cavalry as the main winners of any war. It was Hitler who rubber-stamped Manstein's 'sickle cut' plan for the invasion of France. Many of the German High Command, after the rapid defeat of France, were just as guilty as Hitler for getting carried away in Russia. It should also be noted that it was only after 1941 that Hitler really began to distrust his generals.

Finally, the famed German generals who survived the war (Guderian, Manstein etc) inevitably painted Hitler as mainly responsible for Germany's defeat and built up and coloured their own roles in the war. Anyone reading these memiors (and I'm a big fan of the likes of Guderian and Manstein) should weigh up the fact that dead men can't defend themselves.

Doppelganger. I have no doubt, Hitler had his moments. And even if Hitler hadn't come along, someone else like him would have. The treaty of St. Germain and of course the treaty of Versailles were incredibly unfair and bound to produce someone in the German nation, with an incredibly large axe to grind. These stupid and counter-productive treaties left Germany out in the cold well before the great depression. And every Allied nation, especially the French are partly to blame for the rise of someone like Hitler.

But the man went too far. The West never should have allowed The Cech. nonsense let alone the attack on Poland. All I am trying to say is, I dont believe good ole Adolph was all there from the get go ( North American colloquialism for, from the start) Yes he may have had some good instincts But a cultured people should not have gotten caught up with his National Socialist garbage. I suppose he gave them hope. But I am getting off the beaten track here.

Hitler had the bad habit of pushing the boundary's and after Poland he suddenly understood he had pushed too hard and too often. He seriously did not understand the British reaction to his aggression. He actually thought the Fait Accompli for the war was Poland which didn't exist any longer. he didn't realize, he was the Fait Accoimpli for the war. As far as Britain, France, Belgium, Holland and Norway were concerned, Hitler had to go. They all saw him for what he truly was. A megalomaniac, and a sociopath,( that woird was not used in 1939) surrounded by toadies, thugs and incompetents.

 

[MontyB]

Doppelganger. I have no doubt, Hitler had his moments. And even if Hitler hadn't come along, someone else like him would have. The treaty of St. Germain and of course the treaty of Versailles were incredibly unfair and bound to produce someone in the German nation, with an incredibly large axe to grind.

I tend to think a lot of people believe that German post WW1 militarism began with Hitler when in fact Germany was circumventing the treat of Versailles from the beginning of the Wiemar Republic with submarine development in Italy and Spain as well as tank development in Russia.

 

[Del Boy]

Yes, + Generals Janvier and Fevrier .

Please note this was '+ the scorched earth policies etc'. Papasha quoted. Simply a quote from Napoleon on why he lost his attempt; this was impressed upon us at school post WW11 as to why Germany was unable to defeat Russia . I grew up knowing not to attempt the same thing.:smile: