Why did Germany lose WW2?

[MontyB]

Whoa there trigger... I am usually the one arguing against the "US won WW2" point of view because it was a team effort, you are right that had Russia been knocked out of the war the Allies would have been pretty much destroyed at Normandy but in saying that.
Had Britain been knocked out of the war in 1940 the German troops assigned to protecting France would have been at Barbarossa, had the Russians not received billions of dollars in war supplies from the USA in the first months of the war they too probably would have collapsed as well.

So you are correct in saying that by June 1944 the war was all but over and the Russians had it won but without the efforts of American industry and Western resolve between 1939 and 1942 Russia itself would not have made it to 1944.

I would also like to point out that the US also made a huge contribution to the Pacific theatre as well (understating for effect).

 

[Panzercracker]

Whoa there trigger... I am usually the one arguing against the "US won WW2" point of view because it was a team effort,

No it was not, it was Russia single handedly breaking the German war machine at Stalingrad, Kursk and a number of offensive actions and allies joining in to:

- end the war faster.
- ensure Russia doesnt conquer all of Europe.

Victory itself however was fully by Russia with no meaningfull allied help, and just for the record, i'm Polish and i loathe Russia as a state but we need to be realistic, WW2 in Europe was all about Russia vs Germany, everything else was a sideshow.

of the war in 1940 the German troops assigned to protecting France would have been at Barbarossa,

I'm sorry but in 1940 France was occupied by 300.000 old men and youth with very little heavy equipment, thats less than 1/12th of the total German forces involved in Barbarossa, the 300.000 militia grade troops would have made no difference whatsoever, especially given that they had virtually no heavy wargear.

had the Russians not received billions of dollars in war supplies from the USA in the first months of the war they too probably would have collapsed as well.

Yet another myth, in comparison to the Russian stockpiles the received materials were absolutely pathetic, the only meaningfull item was trucks since Russians did not have enough to meet their needs but given how well they utilized horse traction and what few train lines they had these trucks were not neccesery untill the offensives of 43, by then they had their own industry rolling.

So you are correct in saying that by June 1944 the war was all but over and the Russians had it won but without the efforts of American industry and Western resolve between 1939 and 1942 Russia itself would not have made it to 1944.

I'm too lazy to bring out all of the figures unless you really want me to so just to give you a picture: 13.000 locomotives and rail cars were delivered, Russian stocks of locomotives and rail cars were a few hundred thousand at the time, the comparison of every items except trucks figures that way so again lend lease was not a life saver the West hypes it out to be.

I would also like to point out that the US also made a huge contribution to the Pacific theatre as well (understating for effect).

Except that the Pacific theatre was a private US war without much impact on the European theatre.

We need to differentiate, European theatre which is basically Russia vs Germany and is what we refer to as "World War II" and the private US-Japan war for naval dominance.

This said the contribution of US and the Western allies in general was minuscule when compared to the efforts of Russia and as far as victory over Hitler is concerned both Brits and Americans might as well not participate or spend a single dime and the outcome would still be the same.

 

[MontyB]

No it was not, it was Russia single handedly breaking the German war machine at Stalingrad, Kursk and a number of offensive actions and allies joining in to:

- end the war faster.
- ensure Russia doesnt conquer all of Europe.

Victory itself however was fully by Russia with no meaningfull allied help, and just for the record, i'm Polish and i loathe Russia as a state but we need to be realistic, WW2 in Europe was all about Russia vs Germany, everything else was a sideshow.

I'm sorry but in 1940 France was occupied by 300.000 old men and youth with very little heavy equipment, thats less than 1/12th of the total German forces involved in Barbarossa, the 300.000 militia grade troops would have made no difference whatsoever, especially given that they had virtually no heavy wargear.

I think you have been reading some very dodgy history books my friend, had the war just come down to Germany vs USSR in 1941 the war would have been over by xmas 1942.

Barbarossa would have gone 6 weeks earlier (no Balkans campaign without Britain and no North African campaign either), Germany would have had an extra 200-400,000 troops which would have made a a very big difference outside Moscow in 1941 and in the South in 1942.

Yet another myth, in comparison to the Russian stockpiles the received materials were absolutely pathetic, the only meaningfull item was trucks since Russians did not have enough to meet their needs but given how well they utilized horse traction and what few train lines they had these trucks were not neccesery untill the offensives of 43, by then they had their own industry rolling.

I'm too lazy to bring out all of the figures unless you really want me to so just to give you a picture: 13.000 locomotives and rail cars were delivered, Russian stocks of locomotives and rail cars were a few hundred thousand at the time, the comparison of every items except trucks figures that way so again lend lease was not a life saver the West hypes it out to be.

You know I have never been a huge fan of Lend Lease myself but the strengths of it were not in 1943-44 because by then Russian industry was in full swing, Lend Lease was most important while the Russians were moving their industries east as it provided, food, boots, trucks and war materials to keep the Russians going until their factories were ticking over again.

Except that the Pacific theatre was a private US war without much impact on the European theatre.

We need to differentiate, European theatre which is basically Russia vs Germany and is what we refer to as "World War II" and the private US-Japan war for naval dominance.

Not sure the Australian, Chinese, British, New Zealand and Indian forces in the pacific region would agree with you here either but the Pacific war was primarily a US one.

The big difference in the Pacific is that even had one of the major players been knocked out of the war the US could still have gone it alone here which they could not have done in Europe, had Russia, Britain or the USA been taken out of the European campaign in 1940-42 Germany would have won.

This said the contribution of US and the Western allies in general was minuscule when compared to the efforts of Russia and as far as victory over Hitler is concerned both Brits and Americans might as well not participate or spend a single dime and the outcome would still be the same.

I disagree Russia could not have defeated Germany alone in the early years (1941-42) any more than Britain and the US could have got ashore in France 1944 had Russia collapsed.

 

[Panzercracker]

I think you have been reading some very dodgy history books my friend, had the war just come down to Germany vs USSR in 1941 the war would have been over by xmas 1942.

What dodgy books? The figure of 300.000 troops stands in every history book, western or eastern, we even know the type and amount of armored cars and tanks these occupation forces had.

When Germany Attacked Russia it used approximately 92% of its available manpower, 95% of its armor, 93% of its artillery, i dont have figures for airforce but i bet its similar, and yet you argue that:

Barbarossa would have gone 6 weeks earlier (no Balkans campaign without Britain and no North African campaign either), Germany would have had an extra 200-400,000 troops which would have made a a very big difference outside Moscow in 1941 and in the South in 1942.[/QUOTE]
Point one - the troops occupying France were stripped of virtualy all equipment save what would allow them policing duties.

Point two - it didnt matter how much troops Germany would have outside Moscow, the offensive failed because they didnt have enough equipment and because winter hit, the Russian counter offensive succeeded because it was done by people who were trained and equipped for the weather.

You're proposing adding minuscule amounts of manpower and equipment to an operation that would require Wehrmatch to have 25% more manpower with equipment to boot, they didnt have such capacity, throwing people with rifles into the fray just wont cut it.

You know I have never been a huge fan of Lend Lease myself but the strengths of it were not in 1943-44 because by then Russian industry was in full swing, Lend Lease was most important while the Russians were moving their industries east as it provided, food, boots, trucks and war materials to keep the Russians going until their factories were ticking over again.

You mean in 41-42? When the items of lend lease were still flowing in relatively slowly? Again the stocks of Russian items of every sort dwarf what lend lease provided, you cant in all seriousness claim that the West provided significant help with 2.000 tons of spam when Russia produced over 30.000 monthly during the production low.

The big difference in the Pacific is that even had one of the major players been knocked out of the war the US could still have gone it alone here which they could not have done in Europe, had Russia, Britain or the USA been taken out of the European campaign in 1940-42 Germany would have won.

Again how did the West contribute to the siege of Leningrad, the battle of Kursk or the Operation Bagration, its a nice pretty myth in Western Europe and US of A but the fact is that Russians using Russian weapons built in Russian factories using Russian resources repelled and defeated the Germans.

Lend lease was enormous help in it that it provided required items when Russian industry was already strained but the quantity delivered when compared to quantity produced by Russia proves decisively that while LL was welcome it was not neccesary.

I disagree Russia could not have defeated Germany alone in the early years (1941-42) any more than Britain and the US could have got ashore in France 1944 had Russia collapsed.

Of course Russia couldnt defeat Germany alone early, it lost the majority of its fighting forces, the point in fact is that it managed to hold out on its own, rebuild its industry and military on its own and repel Germans on its own, lend lease was nothing more than token assistance.

To give you another example, 12.000 tanks and SPGs were sent to Russia throught entire lend lease, as for comparison, some numbers are lower than total built but thats because i'm taking into account pre 41 and post war numbers.

Soviet tanks and SPGs, total production between 1941 and 1945.

T-34 - 64.000~
KV series - 3900~
IS series - 6266 (not counting IS-4 its built post war)
BT seriess - ~3000 (mainly BT-7 and 7M)
T-26 - approx 1000 produced in 41 it was being phased out.
T-44 - 1800~
T-70 - 8000~

I'm not messing around with fringe constructions i'm too lazy, SPGs now.

Su-76 - 14000~
Su-85 - 2000~
Su-100 - 2000~
ISU -152 - 1800~

Thats 107.000 vehicles right there, the grand total for SPGs and tanks is over 150.000 pieces and you argue that by delivering something like 7% of total Soviet production throught the entire war allies saved Russia?

We can go down to the rail bolts or shoelaces if you like, the proportions are the same all across the board, its nice that the West is giving itself a pat on the back for what was purely a Russian victory but yeah, thats exactly what it was, US and UK had no meaningfull part to play during WW2 apart from making sure only the unimportant countries like mine get to be occupied by our esteemeed Russian neighbours.

 

[MontyB]

I am sure we can quote Russian production figures until hell freezes over and it wont mean squat until you put it into the timeline, Soviet production did not reach its stride until late 1942.

For example:
Armour (light/medium/heavy) Production 1941:6070
Armour (light/medium/heavy) Production 1942:24792

On top of this you could argue about how this outstripped German production but how much better would German production have been had the USAF and RAF not been blasting the snot out of German industries and had Germany been able to devote more of its production toward anti-tank and tank guns instead of anti-aircraft guns?

How about the Luftwaffe not having to devote most of its fighter strength to defending the Reich and instead devoting it to combating the Russian air force and ground support, to argue that the Western Allies made no significant contribution to the war in Europe ignores a lot sacrifices made by a lot of men and woman of the RAF, USAF and Royal Navy (Murmansk convoys).

How about we discuss the often forgotten Italian campaigns and the German forces tied up there who's presence would have slowed the Russian advance of 1943-44 to a crawl by allowing the units in Russia to be rested and refitted more thoroughly.

I am not going to disagree that even had D-Day not gone ahead the war from a German point of view was already lost and that in reality all D-Day was stop the French from speaking Russian but I think you are severely underestimating allied participation up until that point especially up until the end of 1942.

 

[Panzercracker]

I am sure we can quote Russian production figures until hell freezes over and it wont mean squat until you put it into the timeline, Soviet production did not reach its stride until late 1942.

Which did not matter because untill 41 Russia had more tanks than the whole world combined and even after the losses incurred by Barbarossia it had over 10.000 so they didnt even particulary need tanks especially that Western tanks were very often inferior.

On top of this you could argue about how this outstripped German production but how much better would German production have been had the USAF and RAF not been blasting the snot out of German industries and had Germany been able to devote more of its production toward anti-tank and tank guns instead of anti-aircraft guns?.

German industry was working more or less undisrupted untill serious business of 44, Germans would never come even close to what USSR produced on account of much lower basic production capacity, they built in their and Czech factories and thats for the most part it so bombing runs (which didnt do that much in the first place) didnt really change the picture.

How about the Luftwaffe not having to devote most of its fighter strength to defending the Reich and instead devoting it to combating the Russian air force and ground support,

Actually Luftwaffe did devote most of its aircraft to fighting Russia, ground attacks against Russians were notoriously dangerous and innefective due to the Red Army having obscenely massive amounts of AA, a cavalry regiment could tow up to 20AA guns, mechanized regiments had dedicated AA companies with them and an airforce which while less skilled could and did swamp anything Luftwaffe did or potentially could trow at them.

to argue that the Western Allies made no significant contribution to the war in Europe ignores a lot sacrifices made by a lot of men and woman of the RAF, USAF and Royal Navy (Murmansk convoys).

I never said Western Allies didnt contribute, i said that they were never a factor in ultimate victory over Hitler, their participation made it happen faster and with less Russian losses thats it.

How about we discuss the often forgotten Italian campaigns and the German forces tied up there who's presence would have slowed the Russian advance of 1943-44 to a crawl by allowing the units in Russia to be rested and refitted more thoroughly.

Again you need to see these things in comparison, Italy is a mountanouis (did i spell that right?) country, relatively small forces could hold the allies for a long time.

For example at Monte Cassino 80.000 Germans made it a big campaing, on the Eastern Front both sides operated in hundreds of thousands and Russians in millions, these forces wouldnt contribute anything amazing in the East.

I am not going to disagree that even had D-Day not gone ahead the war from a German point of view was already lost and that in reality all D-Day was stop the French from speaking Russian but I think you are severely underestimating allied participation up until that point especially up until the end of 1942.

I'm not, kudos and hats off to all who fought and lost lives but when you compare D-day with its initial wave of 100.000 with for example Kursk where both sides operated with milion strong formations you can get the picture of the gigantic disparity.

The total German strength in the West was around 450.000 (not counting Ardennes, that was a one shot effort) by comparison the German losses (not even the full army) in the East numbered over 11 milion, Russians at its the peak had over 14 milion fighting men, over 40.000 tanks and SPGs etc, to even mention US or UK as a factor in Hitlers ultimate defeat is a joke in the face of these numbers.

 

[MontyB]

I never said Western Allies didnt contribute, i said that they were never a factor in ultimate victory over Hitler, their participation made it happen faster and with less Russian losses thats it.

Again you need to see these things in comparison, Italy is a mountanouis (did i spell that right?) country, relatively small forces could hold the allies for a long time.

For example at Monte Cassino 80.000 Germans made it a big campaing, on the Eastern Front both sides operated in hundreds of thousands and Russians in millions, these forces wouldnt contribute anything amazing in the East.

I'm not, kudos and hats off to all who fought and lost lives but when you compare D-day with its initial wave of 100.000 with for example Kursk where both sides operated with milion strong formations you can get the picture of the gigantic disparity.

The total German strength in the West was around 450.000 (not counting Ardennes, that was a one shot effort) by comparison the German losses (not even the full army) in the East numbered over 11 milion, Russians at its the peak had over 14 milion fighting men, over 40.000 tanks and SPGs etc, to even mention US or UK as a factor in Hitlers ultimate defeat is a joke in the face of these numbers.

And I am saying you are underestimating the western allies contribution by quite a lot, yes the Russians had a lot of men and material but but they also lost a lot of men and material.

I am happy to agree that the largest and most ferocious battles of the war were fought on the Eastern Front and yes the Russians ground down the German army to the point that it was almost ineffectual in any other theatre but that was later in the war because until the end of 1942 hell even the first half of 1943 they still could have defeated the Russians and given some flexibility in defence they could have bled the Red Army white.

However to say that the West had no real input into the defeat of Germany is doing a great injustice to the RAF, Royal Navy, USAF and the hundreds of thousands of Allied service personnel who handed Hitler his arse in North Africa, Italy, in the air over German industry and in the North Sea taking supplies to that rotten facade that was the Soviet Union between 1941 and 1943.

Basically the UK/Commonwealth did not win the war nor did the USA or Russia individually the Allies won it and it was a concerted effort to do so.

 

[Panzercracker]

And I am saying you are underestimating the western allies contribution by quite a lot, yes the Russians had a lot of men and material but but they also lost a lot of men and material..

And still despite losing so much they had the largest best equipped army.

I am happy to agree that the largest and most ferocious battles of the war were fought on the Eastern Front and yes the Russians ground down the German army to the point that it was almost ineffectual in any other theatre but that was later in the war because until the end of 1942 hell even the first half of 1943 they still could have defeated the Russians and given some flexibility in defence they could have bled the Red Army white.

I absolutely agree, Russians did not have any good commanders (Zhukov was only relatively competent) a bad command structure post purge and could lose but they and Hitlers mistakes saved them from defeat, not lend lease or any minor military operations in Africa.

However to say that the West had no real input into the defeat of Germany is doing a great injustice to the RAF, Royal Navy, USAF and the hundreds of thousands of Allied service personnel who handed Hitler his arse in North Africa, Italy, in the air over German industry and in the North Sea taking supplies to that rotten facade that was the Soviet Union between 1941 and 1943..

Of course Allies had real input, its just that this input had no influence upon the fact that ultimate victory was already won by Russians using Russian resources, German industry was working and actually increasing its output, the main limit to it was the lack of resources rather than lack of facilities.

Also SU was not a rotten facade, it was typically Russian in that it was barbaric, inhuman but Russia is never as strong or as weak as it seems, ultimately they kicked German ass and got so good that their Manchurian campaign was plain scary in efficiency, no ally commander matched this.

Again a blanket statement when the historical fact remains USSR won the war individually, it did not complete the war alone but it could and did break Germany alone, it received very very little help which is today overhyped by Western historians to hide the uncomfortable fact that democracy did not come and save the world.

I'd be willing to conceed if Germany was forced to divert significant forces to the West before Kursk or if any portion of LL items and resources matched even 10% of USSR stockpiles but it didnt (except for those trucks to be fair) so Russians pulled it off themselves (of course i'd never admit it to those bastards since they "liberated" Poland out of half a century of development.)

 

[MontyB]

I'd be willing to conceed if Germany was forced to divert significant forces to the West before Kursk or if any portion of LL items and resources matched even 10% of USSR stockpiles but it didnt (except for those trucks to be fair) so Russians pulled it off themselves (of course i'd never admit it to those bastards since they "liberated" Poland out of half a century of development.)

Well perhaps you should read "Russia's Life Saver by Albert Weeks" because he quotes Russian historian Sokolov as putting Lend Lease at around 15%.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Russia's Life-Saver, Albert L. Weeks, a professor emeritus of New York University who served in the U.S. Air Force during World War II, suggests that the Soviet Union would have been defeated by Nazi Germany if it had not received billions of dollars worth of aircraft, aviation fuel, aluminum, trucks, food, and other critical supplies from the United States. Weeks draws on recent research by Russian historians, especially B. V. Sokolov, who have revised upwards both the amount of Lend-Lease aid received by the U.S.S.R. (from $11 to $12.5 billion) and the percentage of Soviet production that that aid constituted (from 4 percent to 15 percent or more). Sokolov's conclusion, which Weeks endorses, is that "without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders"

 

[Panzercracker]

Well perhaps you should read "Russia's Life Saver by Albert Weeks" because he quotes Russian historian Sokolov as putting Lend Lease at around 15%.

I know Weeks, he's creating his own version of history to match the indoctrinated rubbish the Russians learn.

http://www.geocities.com/mark_willey/lend.html

A complete list, we can compare it with quite a few articles we know of in Soviet Russia, professor Weeks pulls figures out of his ass to fit his jingoistic view of "US winning the war".

production that that aid constituted (from 4 percent to 15 percent or more). Sokolov's conclusion, which Weeks endorses, is that "without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders"

And here's they key to how biased this work is (from 4 to 15 percent or more) it allows manipulating figures ( and yes i read Weeks, he intentionally omits comparison with existing Soviet stocks).

While the whole of LL might have reach 4-10% of stocks of some materials the sheer comparison of the amount of trucks, tanks, reail cars etc debunks figures over that (and Weeks knows it which is why his entire book avoids tackling the existing Russian stocks like wildfire).

As for Sokolov himself he's a russophobe, the guy reached the other end of the extreme, i hate Russia but still i think its immensly unfair that the West claims any influence upon ultimate victory in WW2 given how little (in comparison to Russia) it gave in the effort.

 

[Del Boy]

Oh please, do you want me to post figures for battles around Kharkhiv? Leningrad? Normandy was impressive but irrelevant.

Take that up with Josef Stalin, mate. Perhaps he didn't have your figures.

 

[Panzercracker]

Take that up with Josef Stalin, mate. Perhaps he didn't have your figures.

Stalin was a nut but he was fully conscious of the extreme depopulation and destruction WW2 caused Russia so the Western front was welcomed and desired, it was not neccesery, and Stalin most definitely did have my figures )

 

[Del Boy]

"In the whole history of war - there has never been such an undertaking".

Stalin on the Normandy Invasion - sounds pretty specific and awesome from him. Perhaps he did not share your dismissal of the effort; funny, that.:smile:

 

[Doppleganger]

"In the whole history of war - there has never been such an undertaking".

Stalin on the Normandy Invasion - sounds pretty specific and awesome from him. Perhaps he did not share your dismissal of the effort; funny, that.:smile:

Sounds like a rhetorical and political statement by Ole Joe there, or one taken out of context. If, by his statement, he means it in respect of an amphibious invasion then, of course, he's right, there never was at that point such an undertaking. I think Stalin was just damn happy the Western Allies (in his eyes) were finally doing something.

Overloard was a tremendous undertaking because of the difficulty in landing large forces from the sea against a resisting occupier. However, the scale of it is dwarfed by the battles that took place on the Eastern Front. The Battle of Moscow alone involved over 2 million men, over 20000 artillery pieces and nearly 3000 tanks. With those kinds of numbers it's understandable why Josef Stalin believed that his Red Army was largely responsible for the defeat of Nazi Germany.

 

[MontyB]

It may be an understandable mistake on Stalin's part but it is still a mistake in my opinion.

The real and only question that needs to be answered to prove or disprove Panzercracker's theory is whether Russia could have survived 1941-42 against the entire German army and without any support what so ever from the West.

There is no doubt that once the Red Army was up to spec, reorganised and reequipped that it was always going to defeat the Germans but could it have got there without the initial support.

 

[Del Boy]

OK guys. I bow to your accumulated knowledge of the eastern front, but I quoted Stalin from a good source; the latest up-to -date on The Battle for Normandy - D-DAY. Perhaps the subject has been under-estimated. The new investigation is by Antony Beevor, author of 'Stalingrad' and 'Berlin - the downfall.'

If you are not already on to it, you might care to add the information to your files.

Great quote, wasn't it - 'Even Stalin was awed by D-Day'.

Cheers.:smile:

 

[Doppleganger]

It may be an understandable mistake on Stalin's part but it is still a mistake in my opinion.

The real and only question that needs to be answered to prove or disprove Panzercracker's theory is whether Russia could have survived 1941-42 against the entire German army and without any support what so ever from the West.

Hitler's prejudices and a lack of a cohesive German grand strategy would mean that Russia would probably survive 1941-42 on its own. Germany blew any chance they had at a quick victory in 1941 by firstly, deciding to drive to Moscow after Kiev and secondly, by deciding to go for broke in 1941 in the first place. By some accounts Hitler's initial plan was to revert to a defensive posture after Kiev and wait until 1942 before further offensives were resumed.

There is no doubt that once the Red Army was up to spec, reorganised and reequipped that it was always going to defeat the Germans but could it have got there without the initial support.

Actually in my eyes there is considerable doubt. I think it's perfectly reasonable and fair to say that ill-advised German operations (Stalingrad, Kursk) and over-ambitious objectives such as were assigned to Army Group South in 1942 combined to make it somewhat easier for the Red Army to eventually prevail. With no strategic reserve the Germans had to pretty much make almost-perfect decisions and execute them in the same manner. The Wehrmacht of 1942 was capable of doing that but Hitler's over-ambition prevented them from doing so and cost them dear.

 

[vrmgi]

More thoughts on Germany's mistakes in WWII

Hi all,

New to this thread, been skimming through it though. Lots of good thoughts.

A few comments on things either not said so far or underemphasized:

1. Why did Germany declare war on the U.S.? - FDR had the U.S. military, especially the Navy, flirting ever closer to all out war with Germany already, prior to Dec. 7, 1941. The U.S. was escorting convoys of ships to the mid-Atlantic. Lend Lease started ramping up with the US giving 50 old destroyers to Britain. At Britain's request, US troops occupied Iceland. US Naval "observers" were everywhere, including on board the PBY float plane that spotted the Bismark after the British had lost track of it. Do you think the Germans were unaware of all this? Of course not. The U.S. was practically halfway into war with Germany already. Sooner or later some "accidental" incident was going to happen that would trigger the entry of the U.S. into war with Germany.

2. Hitler as micro-manager. Oh boy was he ever. What other world leader PERSONALLY went over the design plans of his country's tanks, and MADE CHANGES? Yep, it was because of Hitler that the Tiger and Panther tanks were so overweight - he insisted on increasing their armor -this did make them almost invulnerable from the front, but it also caused their engines and drive trains to break down much more frequently.

3. Hitler as micro-manager had a knack for picking the WRONG SUPER-WEAPONS. The Tiger tank, for instance, cost 800,000 Reichmarks, and took 300,000 man-hours to produce (Wilbeck: "Sledgehammers"). Now, by any country's standards - that is a super-weapon. The B-29 cost the U.S. somewhat less than $1 million each at the end of production. If you compare the strategic importance of each weapon, their ability to influence the outcome of WWII, there is no question the B-29 was one of the most important weapons systems of WWII, it led to the surrender of Japan without an invasion. What did the Tiger tanks do? They broke down A LOT! Yes, they knocked out huge numbers of Allied tanks when they were actually in combat, but they were so expensive, and broke down so frequently that few ever made it into combat.

4. The Germans made a serious mistake in NOT developing strategic bombers. This was well within their technological capabilities. The Chief of Staff of the Luftwaffe in the pre-war years, Gen. Walther Wever had conceived of the need for a Ural bomber project in 1934 (much like the US Army's early plans for what became the B-29), which would have been developed in 7 years - 1941!!. Wever was killed in a plane crash in 1936. End of Germany's strategic bombers, as Udet changed the Luftwaffe to a wholly tactical orientation, with medium bombers and dive bombers (there was a brief revival on paper with the Amerika Bomber project in 1942, which went no where). Imagine if the Luftwaffe had a strategic bomber like the B-29 by 1941. They could have done to England, or Russia, what was eventually done to Japan and German cities like Dresden - they could have FIREBOMBED all of England to a crisp, all of the factories transported to the Ural mountains by Russia could have been incinerated to a crisp. Whether Germany invaded Britain or not (and probably it did not have the naval forces and amphibious capabilities to do so successfully), Germany could have made Britain useless as a base for staging an invasion of France. The US could have never stockpiled all those fighters and bombers, tanks, etc., in England if Germany had a strategic bomber. Especially if Germany got one BEFORE the US ramped up its industrial base.

5. Hitler's flaw here was that he simply didn't know squat about the air war. He knew nothing of the latest theories about the power of bomber forces, etc. The former corporal who survived (and apparently loved) trench warfare in WWI, knew only how to extrapolated in a linear fashion from his army experience - and that was that tanks were supreme! He was obsessed with the conduct of the ground war, especially with the performance of German tanks.

Later, when the Me-262 was developed, its use as a fighter was detoured by Hitler when he demanded that it be made into a bomber. Another big mistake. Had the Germans gotten the Me-262 into production earlier, it would have negated the arrival of the P-51 in the European theater and would have done some serious damage to the heavy bombing campaign. Who knows, it might have even prevented the destruction of the synthetic fuel plants, might have prevented the overwhelming tactical air dominance that allowed the Normandy invasion to succeed.

6. Strategic bombing was key to the outcome of WWII. Although people still argue about this, there is no question. The problem with strategic bombing in WWII was that a lot of bombs and bombers were wasted going after the wrong targets. Area bombing was simply not accurate enough to destroy machine tool industries with these highly inaccurate explosive bombs, which is why the bombing campaign did not seriously affect the output of some major war industries like aircraft production and ball bearings. However, the synthetic fuel plants, with their high pressure vessels and piping, were highly vulnerable, and when these were hit, and at the same time Germany lost its oil from the Romanian oil fields (the Russians took over) in the summer of 1944, as Albert Speer himself said, the war was all over for Germany. Oil was the key. You just cannot fight a modern war with modern motorized weapons without a steady oil supply.

Also, area firebombing did work - which is why Curtiss LeMay went this route with Japan - the B-29s were too inaccurate to destroy their targets with explosives - they had to burn down the entire city to take out one industrial plant.

7. So oil was a key ingredient for success in WWII. The US had a huge domestic supply of oil in WWII which it had not used up yet. Somebody mentioned that had the Germans taken the Suez Canal, or taken control of the Mediterranean, that would have won the war for them. Well, sort of. What about making it all the way to British Iraq and Saudi Arabia? That's where the British were getting their oil! The Germans would have both strangled Britain and locked in their own supply of oil to boot.

8. As for the Russians and the Eastern Front - the Germans made numerous tactical mistakes - Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, were all places where they lost men and material and gained nothing. None of it would have mattered if the Germans had a strategic bomber. They could have firebombed Moscow! Firebombed Stalingrad! Firebombed the Ural mountain tank factories!

9. Expulsion/extermination of the Jews. Bad mistake by Hitler. An amazing number of the nuclear physicists of Europe were either Jewish or related to Jews. They were the single biggest reason that the U.S. developed the atomic bomb first. Their absence was a key reason that Germany, despite its heavy water plant and rumors of an atomic bomb program, gave up on the idea. Enrico Fermi, creator of the first working nuclear fission chain reaction and world's first nuclear reactor, an Italian who could have been an ally of Germany, was married to a Jewish woman, and had fled Italy for this reason. As an Italian, Fermi had to register as an enemy alien in the US and was not allowed to own a radio. Neils Bohr was Jewish, Einstein, Leo Szilard were Jewish - these eminent scientists led the drive to lobby FDR to start up the atomic bomb project. Oppenheimer was an American Jew, lots of the working scientists and engineers were Jewish, many from Europe. Even the Russian atomic spies were Jewish - Klaus Fuchs, David Greenglass, the Rosenbergs; in fact, the Prosecutors Irving Saypol and Roy Cohn, and Judge Irving Kaufman who gave the Rosenbergs the death penalty were also Jewish.....ah, I digress, except for Fuchs, the rest were American Jews. Safe to say, though, that without Jewish people, neither the US nor the Soviet Union would have had the atomic bomb, certainly not so soon anyway.

10. So on the super-weapon count, Hitler misfired by putting so much money into the Tiger tanks, which strategically, could not win the war by themselves in the low numbers that they were produced. The Me-262 as a bomber detour was also a screw-up. More bad choices - the V-1 and V-2, while marvelous technological advances, were essentially unguided missiles and useless except as weapons of terror. They both carried only a 1-ton warhead. Had the Germans developed an atomic bomb warhead, they would have been very useful for incinerating England and Russia, but alone, their warheads were no where near the destructive power of a strategic bomber like the B-29 with a load of ten tons of firebombs.

Could Germany have won WWII? I think the answer clearly is yes, if Gen. Wever had lived and the Germans had built and perfected their Ural bomber by 1941.

 

[MontyB]

Well I can't really disagree with much of this I am seeing a theme appearing that people believe Stalingrad was a mistake and yet I can not see a justification for this.

Certainly the decision to hold Stalingrad after things had gone pear shaped was a mistake and not strengthening the flanks of the 6th Army around Stalingrad which was clearly going to be pivot point in any Russian counter offensive was a mistake.

However for Operation Blue to succeed Stalingrad had to be taken and held to secure the drive into the southern oilfields.

In terms of the German declaration of war on the USA I am still not convinced of your argument that the USA was going to enter the European theater at some point anyway as the bombing of Pearl Harbor had given America the idea excuse not to enter Europe, they were after all tied up fighting the Japanese.

I do agree though that the strategic bombing campaign has been largely under rated especially if you look at the resources that were diverted to combat it as well as the damage it did.

 

[Doppleganger]

Hi all,

New to this thread, been skimming through it though. Lots of good thoughts.

A few comments on things either not said so far or underemphasized:

Welcome and thanks for the intelligent and detailed reply. I just wanted to come back to you on some of them.

2. Hitler as micro-manager. Oh boy was he ever. What other world leader PERSONALLY went over the design plans of his country's tanks, and MADE CHANGES? Yep, it was because of Hitler that the Tiger and Panther tanks were so overweight - he insisted on increasing their armor -this did make them almost invulnerable from the front, but it also caused their engines and drive trains to break down much more frequently.

He wasn't like that at first but agreed, he took on way too much after the failure at Moscow. Germany suffered for it. It was only when Speer and Guderian took over management of AFV production and strategy that Germany's AFV programme got somewhat back on line.

3. Hitler as micro-manager had a knack for picking the WRONG SUPER-WEAPONS. The Tiger tank, for instance, cost 800,000 Reichmarks, and took 300,000 man-hours to produce (Wilbeck: "Sledgehammers"). Now, by any country's standards - that is a super-weapon. The B-29 cost the U.S. somewhat less than $1 million each at the end of production. If you compare the strategic importance of each weapon, their ability to influence the outcome of WWII, there is no question the B-29 was one of the most important weapons systems of WWII, it led to the surrender of Japan without an invasion. What did the Tiger tanks do? They broke down A LOT! Yes, they knocked out huge numbers of Allied tanks when they were actually in combat, but they were so expensive, and broke down so frequently that few ever made it into combat.

The Panthers and Tigers broke down a lot when they were first introduced but to be fair, the later variants were pretty reliable and effective. The Tiger, although slow and expensive, was an excellent defensive weapon and one that could control the battlefield. Your point is well taken though - they were TOO expensive for Germany. Guderian wanted to continue with the Panzer IV as the MAIN production tank for Germany - although it was not as good as a Panther or Tiger the later versions were good enough. Plus it was much cheaper and easier to produce. Germany's great operational victories in the early years were down to the proper tactical use of fast mobile tanks, NOT behemoths like the Tiger.

4. The Germans made a serious mistake in NOT developing strategic bombers. This was well within their technological capabilities. The Chief of Staff of the Luftwaffe in the pre-war years, Gen. Walther Wever had conceived of the need for a Ural bomber project in 1934 (much like the US Army's early plans for what became the B-29), which would have been developed in 7 years - 1941!!. Wever was killed in a plane crash in 1936. End of Germany's strategic bombers, as Udet changed the Luftwaffe to a wholly tactical orientation, with medium bombers and dive bombers (there was a brief revival on paper with the Amerika Bomber project in 1942, which went no where). Imagine if the Luftwaffe had a strategic bomber like the B-29 by 1941. They could have done to England, or Russia, what was eventually done to Japan and German cities like Dresden - they could have FIREBOMBED all of England to a crisp, all of the factories transported to the Ural mountains by Russia could have been incinerated to a crisp. Whether Germany invaded Britain or not (and probably it did not have the naval forces and amphibious capabilities to do so successfully), Germany could have made Britain useless as a base for staging an invasion of France. The US could have never stockpiled all those fighters and bombers, tanks, etc., in England if Germany had a strategic bomber. Especially if Germany got one BEFORE the US ramped up its industrial base.

The lack of a strategic bomber programme is one which was consistent with Hitler's war aims and political strategy. The Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe were set-up for short, sharp wars, to dominate and overwhelm their neighbours as quickly as possible before the potential greater economic output of the allies of those countries could be brought to bear. With hindsight, the cancellation of the Ural bomber was a serious mistake, but we can only say that knowing how WW2 panned out. It turned out that the large numbers of tactical bombers had a huge impact in the success of Germany's early campaigns. The other thing to note is that Hitler did not expect to be at war as early as 1939 - the fact that tanks designed as training machines were used in front line formations in the Battle of France tells all.

5. Hitler's flaw here was that he simply didn't know squat about the air war. He knew nothing of the latest theories about the power of bomber forces, etc. The former corporal who survived (and apparently loved) trench warfare in WWI, knew only how to extrapolated in a linear fashion from his army experience - and that was that tanks were supreme! He was obsessed with the conduct of the ground war, especially with the performance of German tanks.

I would take issue with this. Hitler's problem was that he had set-up the Luftwaffe to be a tactical weapon and was unable to adapt it to a strategic one due to muddled and myopic grand strategy. Hitler in 1939 was well up with the latest thinking regarding air power.

Later, when the Me-262 was developed, its use as a fighter was detoured by Hitler when he demanded that it be made into a bomber. Another big mistake. Had the Germans gotten the Me-262 into production earlier, it would have negated the arrival of the P-51 in the European theater and would have done some serious damage to the heavy bombing campaign. Who knows, it might have even prevented the destruction of the synthetic fuel plants, might have prevented the overwhelming tactical air dominance that allowed the Normandy invasion to succeed.

I think the ME-262 was a little too late to really change the course of the war.

6. Strategic bombing was key to the outcome of WWII. Although people still argue about this, there is no question. The problem with strategic bombing in WWII was that a lot of bombs and bombers were wasted going after the wrong targets. Area bombing was simply not accurate enough to destroy machine tool industries with these highly inaccurate explosive bombs, which is why the bombing campaign did not seriously affect the output of some major war industries like aircraft production and ball bearings. However, the synthetic fuel plants, with their high pressure vessels and piping, were highly vulnerable, and when these were hit, and at the same time Germany lost its oil from the Romanian oil fields (the Russians took over) in the summer of 1944, as Albert Speer himself said, the war was all over for Germany. Oil was the key. You just cannot fight a modern war with modern motorized weapons without a steady oil supply.

Also, area firebombing did work - which is why Curtiss LeMay went this route with Japan - the B-29s were too inaccurate to destroy their targets with explosives - they had to burn down the entire city to take out one industrial plant.

If we discount the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan, strategic bombing in itself did not win the war. Certainly it paved the way for ground forces to do so. As the coalition allies discovered in 1991, it is not possible to win a war entirely from the air - troops are still needed on the ground to secure and hold objectives.

Firebombing and the like is certainly very effective if you are prepared to kill very large numbers of non combatants. In WW2 this was still deemed acceptable of course.

8. As for the Russians and the Eastern Front - the Germans made numerous tactical mistakes - Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, were all places where they lost men and material and gained nothing. None of it would have mattered if the Germans had a strategic bomber. They could have firebombed Moscow! Firebombed Stalingrad! Firebombed the Ural mountain tank factories!

They made operational and strategic mistakes rather than tactical ones. Not closing pockets like the one that formed at Yelna, severely overestimating their own logistical apparatus and severely underestimating the Soviet's ability to replace destroyed armies and the individual Russian solder's will to resist, attempting a 3 pronged invasion of the largest country on the planet, not capitalizing on the goodwill of peoples like the Ukrainians, I could go on and on...

10. So on the super-weapon count, Hitler misfired by putting so much money into the Tiger tanks, which strategically, could not win the war by themselves in the low numbers that they were produced. The Me-262 as a bomber detour was also a screw-up. More bad choices - the V-1 and V-2, while marvelous technological advances, were essentially unguided missiles and useless except as weapons of terror. They both carried only a 1-ton warhead. Had the Germans developed an atomic bomb warhead, they would have been very useful for incinerating England and Russia, but alone, their warheads were no where near the destructive power of a strategic bomber like the B-29 with a load of ten tons of firebombs.

Good points and all valid.

Could Germany have won WWII? I think the answer clearly is yes, if Gen. Wever had lived and the Germans had built and perfected their Ural bomber by 1941.

Hitler's obsession with wonder weapons did impact Germany's ability to fight on a strategic level, but Germany could still have won the war without a strategic bomber.