Why did Germany lose WW2?

[Doppleganger]

No it was not, to this day Russia has less railroads then even the poorest European countries.
http://www.russia-ukraine-travel.com/images/map-russia-roads-rail.gif

Look at the size of the country - is it any wonder!? Anyway, the part of Russia that we're talking about is European Russia as that's the bit that really mattered in WW2.

No it did not, LL send 11.000 railcars and 1200 locomotives, Russian stocks at the time consisted of 600.000 railcars and 28.000 locomotives.

Thats 1/60th of the railcars and 1/28th of the locos the Russians already had, please stop with this lend lease crap its getting old.

And of those stocks you mention how many were still in service and up-to-date? Do you think they all would have been up to the task? How many modern machine tools did the USSR have? Are you trying to pretend that Lend Lease had no impact?

http://orbat.com/site/sturmvogel/SovLendLease.html

IMO the Red Army won WW2 but Lend Lease helped them, whether you like it or not.

And that sir is the only valid point and also the only relevant one, Russia took 2.5 years to move across spaces that Germany had first covered within several months, German logistics were great and outside idiotic mass education programs like discovery channel no one claims otherwise, the only problem was the speed of advancement, the argument about horse traction is also rubbish since Russians used it en masse till the end of the world as well and it worked, neither Wehrmacht nor the Red Army were ever fully mechanised, that applies only to the Western Allies.

German logistics were great? Are you kidding me?

1. Is that why at the start of Operation Typhoon most panzer divisions had less than half the amount of fuel they needed for offensive operations?
2. Is that why in late 1941 German winter gear was stuck in Poland when it should have been at the front line?
3. Is that why Guderian, so short of fuel, had to starve one of his own Panzer Corps, XLVIII to be precise, so that it was unable to operate in any meaningful way for the first 3 weeks of Operation Typhoon?
4. Is that why Army Group Centre in Autumn 1941, was only receiving 12-20 trains worth of supplies instead of the 30 that they needed to sustain operations?
5. Is that why at the start of Operation Typhoon Army Group Centre was only receiving 65% of the fuel and ammunition they needed to operate?

Does that sound like great logistics to you?

Oh yeah horse traction. German horses worked great in Russia didn't they? Most of them died of the cold or were eaten.

 

[MontyB]

Look at the size of the country - is it any wonder!? Anyway, the part of Russia that we're talking about is European Russia as that's the bit that really mattered in WW2.


And of those stocks you mention how many were still in service and up-to-date? Do you think they all would have been up to the task? How many modern machine tools did the USSR have? Are you trying to pretend that Lend Lease had no impact?

http://orbat.com/site/sturmvogel/SovLendLease.html

IMO the Red Army won WW2 but Lend Lease helped them, whether you like it or not.


German logistics were great? Are you kidding me?

1. Is that why at the start of Operation Typhoon most panzer divisions had less than half the amount of fuel they needed for offensive operations?
2. Is that why in late 1941 German winter gear was stuck in Poland when it should have been at the front line?
3. Is that why Guderian, so short of fuel, had to starve one of his own Panzer Corps, XLVIII to be precise, so that it was unable to operate in any meaningful way for the first 3 weeks of Operation Typhoon?
4. Is that why Army Group Centre in Autumn 1941, was only receiving 12-20 trains worth of supplies instead of the 30 that they needed to sustain operations?
5. Is that why at the start of Operation Typhoon Army Group Centre was only receiving 65% of the fuel and ammunition they needed to operate?

Does that sound like great logistics to you?

Oh yeah horse traction. German horses worked great in Russia didn't they? Most of them died of the cold or were eaten.

Recently I have been reading Hitlers Panzers East by Russell Stolfi and Scorched Earth: The Russian - German War 1943-1944 by Paul Carell (Now I am not sure if either of them have a Discovery Channel show or not) but they seem to support your argument, although I am interested in Carell's idea that Germany still could have defeated Russia as late as the Summer of 1943.

 

[perseus]

Russia took 2.5 years to move across spaces that Germany had first covered within several months.

I would say it took about a year (August 43 to August 44) to cover what Germany covered in the first 6 months of their campaign, if you ignore the Southern bits in Green which mainly covers axis countries. This doesn't quite start from the Easternmost parts which were conquered during 41 by Germany, but bear in mind they couldn't hold this for long, and the Russian advance includes bits of Poland which were under German control at the outset of Babarossa.

 

[DEisenhower]

Germany should have gone ahead with Sealion. It was there only shot. A massed naval and air surge would have slowed down the Royal Navy. Enough troops would have reached the island to be decisive. It would have taken Britain out of the war. Then they could benefit from British factories and crush Russia.

 

[DEisenhower]

their* oops

 

[Doppleganger]

Recently I have been reading Hitlers Panzers East by Russell Stolfi and Scorched Earth: The Russian - German War 1943-1944 by Paul Carell (Now I am not sure if either of them have a Discovery Channel show or not) but they seem to support your argument, although I am interested in Carell's idea that Germany still could have defeated Russia as late as the Summer of 1943.

I might pick up Russell Stolfi's book - Paul Carell's work though is quite old having been mainly written back in the 1960's. He's also a former member of the security SS, although he was never successfully prosecuted. His opinion that Germany could still have won the war after Stalingrad is not one that I sure.

Negoiated cease-fire and 'draw' yes. Victory, no way.

 

[Panzercracker]

Germany should have gone ahead with Sealion. It was there only shot. A massed naval and air surge would have slowed down the Royal Navy. Enough troops would have reached the island to be decisive. It would have taken Britain out of the war. Then they could benefit from British factories and crush Russia.

Reading you guys is like reading Russian version of history, its equally messed up but in the other direction.

1. UK was absolutely not a factor, ever, its fleets couldnt do anything against Germany, its army alone would have gotten rolled over at any point of the war and even expending Luftwaffe on BoB was not that much of a deal since airforce stopped playing a crucial role very early on in Russia.

2. British factories were absolutely useless to Germany, much of what UK produced was junk by German standards and given that Germany had a finite amount of resources available the English factories would have to replace already working German and Czech ones rather than add additional production volume and they would be producing British designs which were not integrated into the Wehrmacht.

 

[perseus]

Reading you guys is like reading Russian version of history, its equally messed up but in the other direction.

1. UK was absolutely not a factor, ever, its fleets couldn't do anything against Germany, its army alone would have gotten rolled over at any point of the war and even expending Luftwaffe on BoB was not that much of a deal since airforce stopped playing a crucial role very early on in Russia.

2. British factories were absolutely useless to Germany, much of what UK produced was junk by German standards and given that Germany had a finite amount of resources available the English factories would have to replace already working German and Czech ones rather than add additional production volume and they would be producing British designs which were not integrated into the Wehrmacht.

Gosh this is a bit extreme to say the least.

1) Speer thought that the bomber squadrons could bring Germany to it's knees. Perhaps not, but what could Germany have achieved if not forced to defend against these? Actually the the BOB was the beginning of the end for the Luftwaffe since they lost many of their best pilots which they needed to train the new recruits.

Whilst I don't think the British army was of the calibre of the Germans, man per man it was probably the best the Allies had in the early stages. America was inexperienced, and Russia just funnelled in more men to destruction to achieve their limited successes up to 1944.

2) Was the Spitfire, magnetron, Bletchley park, useless? surely not. The issue of supplies is probably more valid but British sea power was preventing Germany getting those supplies via sea and oil via the Middle East. Didn't Germany resort to converting subs to carry vital ores late on in the war, because they couldn't make the alloys?

 

[Doppleganger]

Reading you guys is like reading Russian version of history, its equally messed up but in the other direction.

Panzercracker. Please reply to my counter-points to your points.

BTW, the picture in my avatar and my signature should tell you that I am no particular great fan of the Red Army.

 

[Panzercracker]

Panzercracker. Please reply to my counter-points to your points.

BTW, the picture in my avatar and my signature should tell you that I am no particular great fan of the Red Army.

I'm no particular fan of all things Russian but if they didnt win the war i wouldnt physically be here as my ethnicity (Slavs) would be gassed, enslaved or relocated to Syberia.

As for your points, Typhoon is not a good example since the fuel shortages came mostly from the fact that resupply routes were horribly extended, if you want a true example of German logistic mess then you should have picked Army Group South which got its ammo-fuel load out in 2-1 proportions which lead to tanks with full ammo magazines grinding to a halt without fuel.

All these are however fairly small time when you compare them to Germans supplying an entire army corps in Demyansk pocket via air or putting together the Ardennes ofensive when they did.

As for horses being eaten thats true but they did make the offensive possible and it worked smoothly (to a point) while using them.

You also forget the fact that throught the war Germans were the only ones who practised truly mechanised warfare and worked supplies for it, you cannot expect flawless operation especially when they had such limited resources.

 

[Del Boy]

It occurrs to me that this thread amounts to a mass of excuses as to why the Germans lost WW11 so bigtime on so many fronts and ended flattened to be rebuilt by USA, even tho' at the same time, claims are constantly made regarding how superior in every way they were, and how crap everything British was, and how unimportant their greatest adversary was.

Surprising to say the least when one considers that Britain led the battle against Hitler from the very start, influencing and persuading those who dithered initially, whilst holding the fort, and destroying the Lutwaffe, Germany's greatest joy and expectation.

Without the intervention of Britain and its determination to rid the world of this crass regime Germany would have got away with it.

Your arguments have a flaw - no force claiming such power and expertise and all round wonderfulness in the extreme could have lost so badly right into the heart of Berlin whilst holding all the great aces you attribute to them.

Blame Britain for the regime's downfall which took its armies down with it; we won't be offended - we can take it.

All reminds me of an old answer which sums up Britain's post-war attitude.



" They attacked - we won - let's eat."

That is the answer to your question - and it is now blowing in the wind.

 

[Panzercracker]

even tho' at the same time, claims are constantly made regarding how superior in every way they were, and how crap everything British was, and how unimportant their greatest adversary was.

Actually they considered destroying their greatest adversary, Russia important enough to employ a nationwide effort to do it.

Surprising to say the least when one considers that Britain led the battle against Hitler from the very start, influencing and persuading those who dithered initially, whilst holding the fort, and destroying the Lutwaffe, Germany's greatest joy and expectation.

Wow, i'd always think that in the East Russia led the battle and in the West US on account of being a driving force behind all the European action.
Without the intervention of Britain and its determination to rid the world of this crass regime Germany would have got away with it.

Your arguments have a flaw - no force claiming such power and expertise and all round wonderfulness in the extreme could have lost so badly right into the heart of Berlin whilst holding all the great aces you attribute to them.

You omit the fact that it took three major world powers two of which (US and USSR) were much larger and more richer to beat Germany.

Blame Britain for the regime's downfall which took its armies down with it; we won't be offended - we can take it.

The only thing i personally blame UK for is repeated betreyal of my countrymen but thats for another discussion, UK had very little to do with Hitlers defeat like it or not numbers prove me right.

An army besieging Leningrad was larger than all the forces in Western Europe, the German airforce flying at Kursk was equal to what Germans had accesible for BoB, you fought a couple of Rommels divisions and some hitlleryouth in Normandy and even that only thanks to American resources and manpower.

About leading the fight from the start? As far as i remember it was Poland who first told Hitler to go screw himself, what UK did just year before was sell him Czechoslovakia so sorry captain fantastic but its not all pink and fluffy for your country.

 

[Doppleganger]

As for your points, Typhoon is not a good example since the fuel shortages came mostly from the fact that resupply routes were horribly extended, if you want a true example of German logistic mess then you should have picked Army Group South which got its ammo-fuel load out in 2-1 proportions which lead to tanks with full ammo magazines grinding to a halt without fuel.

The fuel shortages came because the logistical chain was never up to the job in the first place. However, I doubt that any other army would have been able to put together an adequate logistical framework in the time the Germans had, or gave themselves, whichever you believe to be true. The Western Allies also had logistical issues in late 1944. You argued that German logistics were 'great' and that is just a fallacy. At best they were adequate.

Arguably Operation Typhoon was THE critical operation for the Wehrmacht in WW2, perhaps the critical operation of all WW2, Pearl Harbour possibly aside. The Germans forced themselves to rush the operation and suffered the consequences.

All these are however fairly small time when you compare them to Germans supplying an entire army corps in Demyansk pocket via air or putting together the Ardennes ofensive when they did.

Well, Army Group Centre as assembled for Typhoon was by some margin the largest German formation ever assembled. Pretty big time I would say.

As for horses being eaten thats true but they did make the offensive possible and it worked smoothly (to a point) while using them.

They were absolutely necessary so from that viewpoint you are correct.

You also forget the fact that throught the war Germans were the only ones who practised truly mechanised warfare and worked supplies for it, you cannot expect flawless operation especially when they had such limited resources.

Only on a relatively small scale. Few formations even at the divisional level were fully motorised.

 

[Panzercracker]

The fuel shortages came because the logistical chain was never up to the job in the first place. However, I doubt that any other army would have been able to put together an adequate logistical framework in the time the Germans had, or gave themselves, whichever you believe to be true. The Western Allies also had logistical issues in late 1944. You argued that German logistics were 'great' and that is just a fallacy. At best they were adequate.

You're looking from a XXI century horse, again the war Germany engaged it was the first of its kind, they did not have tried and set standards so frack ups would and did happen but still given that they survived the winter and managed to keep the supply chain up at all speaks volumes for their capacity.

Arguably Operation Typhoon was THE critical operation for the Wehrmacht in WW2, perhaps the critical operation of all WW2, Pearl Harbour possibly aside. The Germans forced themselves to rush the operation and suffered the consequences.

Germans didnt have much choice, besieging Moscow with Leningrad and Stalingrad directions was out of the question, it was either knocking Moscow out early or dropping one of the other strategic targets in favor of the siege.

Well, Army Group Centre as assembled for Typhoon was by some margin the largest German formation ever assembled. Pretty big time I would say.

Which is another reason why shortages occured, from the top of my head they had 1400 tanks, oil for Germany came from Romania and Austria and it was not sufficient.

 

[Doppleganger]

You're looking from a XXI century horse, again the war Germany engaged it was the first of its kind, they did not have tried and set standards so frack ups would and did happen but still given that they survived the winter and managed to keep the supply chain up at all speaks volumes for their capacity.

I'll agree that it was a new type of war and of course there was some teething problems because of it. However, the Germans continued to attempt a 3 pronged invasion of Russia when their belief that the Red Army would collapse after 6 weeks didn't come to pass. Furthermore, it allowed them to overlook that they couldn't possible supply 35 panzer/motorised divisions with the 500000 litres of fuel they each needed for every single operation.

Germans didnt have much choice, besieging Moscow with Leningrad and Stalingrad directions was out of the question, it was either knocking Moscow out early or dropping one of the other strategic targets in favor of the siege.

Basically Hitler had 2 choices in 1941; a) Target Kiev then rest until 1942 or b) Target Moscow. What he ended up going for was something in between.

Which is another reason why shortages occured, from the top of my head they had 1400 tanks, oil for Germany came from Romania and Austria and it was not sufficient.

Because Operation Typhoon was rushed as a result of the delay in going for Kiev, OKH did not have time to stockpile adequate supplies to allow all their panzer divisions to function effectively. If they had waited until 1942 after the Kiev operation, this would have allowed plenty of time for supplies to reach the front line.

 

[Del Boy]

Panzercracker

I seem to recall that Russia and Germany were allies initially, and that US was not engaged early.

And great , blame Britain and not Germany for the snatching of Prague and Warsaw.

None of it was pink, it was all black. And romance is fine, but fact is they lost , and all else is supposition.

Churchill was the factor, and Britain was the spark that lit the bonfire.

I remember, I don't live out of books.

 

[Panzercracker]

Panzercracker

I seem to recall that Russia and Germany were allies initially, and that US was not engaged early.

Yes they were but how is it relevant to our discussion?

And great , blame Britain and not Germany for the snatching of Prague and Warsaw.

Lets get it clear, its 100% no wait its 1000% Britains fault in general and Chamberleins in specific that Czechoslovakia with its massive armament industry was forced to bend over, Brits gave away Czech factories without a blink hoping to appease Hitler.

As for Poland? The greater weight of treason falls on France, it could attack and end WW2 there and then in 1939, Britain is guilty of promising aid when it had no way of delivering it.

Churchill was the factor, and Britain was the spark that lit the bonfire.

I remember, I don't live out of books.

I'm sorry but lets cut the cheap romanticising and stick to the facts? The facts are Germans attacked Russia, got close to cutting it but failed due to combination of bad planning, bad luck, winter and Russian resistance, then Russia proceeded to win the war all by itself and in 44 when the war was already won the West jumped in because Stalin didnt want to waste another 5 milion men and Churchill and Roosevelt didnt want to see communist France and Germany.

UK didnt play a large part in this war despite Churchill trying to puff himself up, its contribution was marginal when compared to Russia and possible only thanks to America and it showed, even at Yalta where Churchill got completely marginalized as the leader of a secondary power.

Great Britain was leading nothing, no one, not sparking anything, it was never an obstacle or a deciding factor in the war at large.

 

[MontyB]

It occurrs to me that this thread amounts to a mass of excuses as to why the Germans lost WW11 so bigtime on so many fronts and ended flattened to be rebuilt by USA, even tho' at the same time, claims are constantly made regarding how superior in every way they were, and how crap everything British was, and how unimportant their greatest adversary was.

Well I guess that is why the title of the thread is "Why did Germany lose WW2"

Lets be honest here they got extremely close to controlling Europe and the Middle East on their own (Their allies were so close to useless that they were almost a handicap) and as Panzercracker has pointed out it took the combined weight of the three biggest powers in the world to bring them down and even then it wasn't easy.

 

[Del Boy]

UK didnt play a large part in this war despite Churchill trying to puff himself up, its contribution was marginal when compared to Russia and possible only thanks to America and it showed, even at Yalta where Churchill got completely marginalized as the leader of a secondary power.

Great Britain was leading nothing, no one, not sparking anything, it was never an obstacle or a deciding factor in the war at large.

Nice try. Russia did nothing more that defend itself desperately, and just as always was assisted in that to a great extent by Generals Janvier and Fevrier.

Churchill - who the hell do you think put the alliance together, was a jump ahead of Hitler on through the 1930's and 40s ;without whom Hitler would probably never have been challenged. Wise up - Hitler lost the lot very big time, and Churchill was his nemesis. Truth is he got stuffed.

I am not being disrespectful, but I don't care to see history being re-written; even if it is fun.

Sure, WW11 broke Britain and its Empire, but that was the cost, the calculation; to stop Hitler at all costs. Don't try all that no British contribution nonsense, I was there when the Lutwaffe tried to crush London by civilian terror; when they got the two fingers from all Londoners; when the Lutwaffe was sent into history. I was there when the US and Canadian troops massed here with our forces to liberate Europe - it happened here; and I was in the cold war countries post war, when we had to walk in the middle of the roads to talk. I spoke to guys who battled in the drains of Warsaw. I lived through the times.

Will you have to rely on books in years to come to learn of what is unfolding now in Europe. Of course not, you will have lived it daily, watched , and heard history unfold spoke to others who were on the spot.

You are entitled to your opinion, I happen to disagree. That's life.

AND MONTYB - no argument with you there.

 

[captiva303]

simple... they lost because Hitler was an idiot