Why did Germany lose WW2?
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Any chance we can bring this thread back on track or do we need more nonsense from the political forums?
redcoat
Active member
The German military high command.
With the failure of the German spring offensive and the success of the Allied counter-attack, it was the military high command which urged the Kaiser to seek peace.
The civil unrest in Germany broke out only when it was clear to the German population that they had already lost the war, and that defeat was only a matter of time.
The 'stab in the back' claims were made by the German military commanders in order to hide the fact it was their incompetence which cost Germany the war
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
At present there is a TV series being shown on satellite TV called something like “Behind closed doors WW2.” Its a docu drama based on facts and documents released after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
From documents released, Stalin promised Hitler that the Soviets would support Germany in every way possible to defeat her enemies.
As history shows ,after the German invasion, Stalin realised he needed to make new allies then made approaches to the British and US Governments and then the impossible Soviet demands for a 2nd front as early as 1942.
So far the series has reached where the Soviets leadership were preparing to leave Moscow, but forced to stand by Stalin.
From documents released, Stalin promised Hitler that the Soviets would support Germany in every way possible to defeat her enemies.
As history shows ,after the German invasion, Stalin realised he needed to make new allies then made approaches to the British and US Governments and then the impossible Soviet demands for a 2nd front as early as 1942.
So far the series has reached where the Soviets leadership were preparing to leave Moscow, but forced to stand by Stalin.
perseus
Active member
Sounds like another peice of paper to be ripped up when convenient. I cannot remember this bit in the programme, what date was this after the Nazi Soviet pact?
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
As far as I can remember it was during the talks between the Nazi and Soviets regarding the Nazi Soviet Pact, from notes taken by the German delegation.
The Nazi delegation stated that the pact should last for 100 years, Stalin rebuked this and stated 10 years.
Last edited:
Nor only Japan did not have the manpower,but also not the means (oil) for fighting in Siberia . They were broken by the war in China . And in April 1941 ,immediately afther their treaty with Germany,they concluded a treaty with the USSR,resulting in invalidating their 'theoretical ' alliance with Germany .
There are surely nicer languages but german is not that bad
The common enemy is also a common tool in politics. For Hitler it was the Jews and communists, after WWII it was the Communists or (on the other side) the capitalist-imperialists and now its the muslims.
Yes, it was quite unfortunate for the Jews, but hadn't it been them, I'm sure they had found someone else.
The German Empire had quite a lot to do with supporting the bolshewiks in 1917, including transporting Lenin from swizerland to russia to start his revolution.
And honestly, do you really belive this "the jews are behind the communist revolution" nonsense? Russia just had a big jewish population (probably lots of them didn't even know they where rated as jewish) so it is not such a surprise there have been quite a few people with jewish anchestors among the bolsheviks.
You dont fight the whole world with a fistfull of allies at to fronts at once. Especially not with a madman who think he should waste precious ressources to rout some "inferior lifeforms".
The war lasted 6 years too long and still we can be glad it finally ended. Otherwise we probably would still fight uprisings all across occupied countries (we as in us germans). Hitler was a 1st class megalomanic and winning this war was impossible from the beginning (just look up his ideas about turning Berlin into "Germania". Now we could go into why did the germans elect him (wich was far from being a democratic elction) and why the Army supported him, but thats another topic.
For concering the world Germany had neither the manpower nor the ressources nor the technology. Hitler archived alot, but the whole idea was ridicilous from the beginning.
They where banned coz of a tradition going back to the beginnings of christianisation when the christian churches tried to get rid of their competitors. But not because of a "take over the world" conspiracy.
And banned , well, in some countries they had more and in others less rights. AFAIK Prussia e.g. didnt mind jews at all. Was one of the first to give them the same rights as citicens as to the non jewish.
And as I said before, lots of the finest Officers in WWI in the imperial german Army where jews.The one inventing the german Poison Gas, Professor Haber, was a jew (ironically, isn't it?).
Originally Posted by TheWretchedMass
Who was responsible for the 1918 revolution in WWI that lost the Germans the war?
Actually not the german High Command, but the Command of the german Navy. They thought it would be prudent to send out the navy to a suicide mission, to go down and die a heroic death. But, the sailors didn't thing that's just a good idea.
That started the mutinities in Kiel wich spread to other navy habours and than all over the country.
Last edited by a moderator:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
As was shown in 1945 and even before that in border skirmishes the Japanese did not have the ability to effectively fight the Russians, the only thing a Japanese attack on Russia would have achieved would have been the rapid entry of Japan into the Warsaw pact and the war in the Pacific would have been over before it even started.
The best thing the Japanese could have done for the Germans was give Russia the impression that it may attack and head south to take over European possessions on mainland asia, had they taken India out of the war in 1942-3 Britain would have been finished.
I agree, German racial policy was huge mistake especially when you have people like the Ukrainians who would have supported the German cause treated so badly that they supplied Stalin with hundreds of thousands of troops.
Yes well German logistics were stretched from the start add equipment complexity would have made it much worse.
I wouldn't give too much on such promises, even if they are made on paper and sighned. ermany had a no agressiean treaty sighned with poland as well as the the russians had with poland, and did that stop them from invading? I think they alll thought what the german (1st after WWII) chancerlor Adenauer said (probably I don#t translate it accurately but the meaning should be the same) "Who cares what I said yesterday".
Why Germany lost? Hitler made to many mistakes.
He wasted units at stalingrad, he let pauluses 6th army to just die
He should have finished off the british at dunkirk
He shouldnt have started the two front war
Im prett sure his armys comand and such didnt have enough leeniency for his generals to operate to their full potential.
THey had the italians, and they faired horribly in war, germany always had tohsupport them
Did germany ever have special forces in the war to invade countrys such as britain, like the SAS?
He wasted units at stalingrad, he let pauluses 6th army to just die
He should have finished off the british at dunkirk
He shouldnt have started the two front war
Im prett sure his armys comand and such didnt have enough leeniency for his generals to operate to their full potential.
THey had the italians, and they faired horribly in war, germany always had tohsupport them
Did germany ever have special forces in the war to invade countrys such as britain, like the SAS?
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
Neither Hitler or Stalins promises were worth the paper they were writen on, as Chamberlain found out with his "Peace in our time."
Last edited:
Some questions: 1) Without Stalingrad,could Hitler have won the war ? 2)Could he have finished off the British at Dunkirk 3) If yes,what would the British have done ?4) Instead of starting a two front war,what should he have done 5)You have any proof that the British invaded countries with special forces 6)You think that with special forces,Hitler should have won ?
1) yes, stalingrad was not needed to win before. Someone else made an excelent post about how if hitler took moscow, he would have a major railway intersection, the russian government was there, and it would be a serious blow to teh citizens and soldiers morale. And it would be hard for the russian army to counter attack with large groups of units (this is mostly taken from the other gusy great post)
2) Hitler ordere his armys to halt for 3 days, and it allowed the british adn allies to evacute. Hitler should have kept up the attack and crushed them then and there.
3) the british would be left with the RAF, yes they were superb, but they could have been overcome if the germans had targeted the radar faacilitys more often. The radar gave teh RAF their massive advantage to win. Once they got air superiority, they could lauch a mainland invasion to conquer the nation.
4)Instead of a two front war, hitler should have concentrated on his borders, and pressuring britain, who at the time was the only nation openly against Germany that was a threat.
5)I read that the british mostly launched command raids in the time leading up from the battle of britain to the normandy invasion. I could be wrong.
6) if hitler had special forces, he could have used them to raid the radar facilitys, install fear in the islands people, and just overall mess up britains
war economy. Commandos could have helped change the course of the war a lot.
2) Hitler ordere his armys to halt for 3 days, and it allowed the british adn allies to evacute. Hitler should have kept up the attack and crushed them then and there.
3) the british would be left with the RAF, yes they were superb, but they could have been overcome if the germans had targeted the radar faacilitys more often. The radar gave teh RAF their massive advantage to win. Once they got air superiority, they could lauch a mainland invasion to conquer the nation.
4)Instead of a two front war, hitler should have concentrated on his borders, and pressuring britain, who at the time was the only nation openly against Germany that was a threat.
5)I read that the british mostly launched command raids in the time leading up from the battle of britain to the normandy invasion. I could be wrong.
6) if hitler had special forces, he could have used them to raid the radar facilitys, install fear in the islands people, and just overall mess up britains
war economy. Commandos could have helped change the course of the war a lot.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I disagree completely, Stalingrad had to be taken and held to protect the northern flank of Army Group Souths drive into the Caucasus, it was in my opinion the lynch pin of the whole operation.
Doppleganger
Active member
I think he's saying that Stalingrad might not have been necessary had Moscow been taken and held. Of course,for Case Blue to work in 1942 Stalingrad had to be taken and held. Stalingrad is the major rail hub for that region and would be essential for any proper long-term supply to German armies operating in the area.
i have read most of the thread some time ago so i may not remember correctly.
The bad planning of Operation Barbarossa , on a logistical , on the level of production or even a technological level has been repeated several times. And that had a lot to do with the Germans underestimating the Russians . However to be frank many of their miscalculations had a lot to do with them underestimating Russia itself or not making the correct adjustments in their planning.
The Germans also underestimated the Russians ability to mobilize men and resources for their war effort more rapidly than they would as their situation seemed more futile and was futile. And they where ready to pay the cost for it.
My question is , like the egg or the chicken anecdote , whether the Germans underestimation of the Russians had to do with Hitler's ideology and that lead to the Germans not utilizing or creating and organizing an effective spy network from which to gain the information needed ?
Or if the results of their current spy network gave to Hitler the confidence to do what ideologically he saw as his duty to do.
The issue of German or Russian spy networks is i believe an extremely important issue that was strangely not discussed here.
Then there is the issue that at 41 after the purges , the Russians also faced serious problems. so other than ideological reasons those serious problems the Russians faced may been another reason for a maybe accidental and not made in purpose underestimation of the Russians by Hitler and the Germans. Though still a mistake .
I enjoyed reading you all , especially Doppleganger and Monty.
Edit : Another issue/question is the Red Army adapting to the field. Yes on a tactical level Germans often had better commanders. On a minor-tactical one ? I think the Russians where constantly using their environment to their advantage in a way the Germans couldn't do. I am not talking about large scale battles but about the way the Russians improvised and used the what they had on each location to create defenses and fierce resistance to the Germans. Better adaptability of the Russians in general is not to be taken for granted , and i think it was another factor for the victory of the Russians. ( there was a series of many small battles over russian positions all over Russia the Germans couldn't break , this also happened in Stalingrand i believe.)
Another issue i would like to be examined would be the effect of Russian artillery in the world. Everyone talks about T34 but what about Russian artillery in comparison with german artillery , and german tactics ?
Another question regarding Russian tactics. Would it been better for them to have chosen a different tactics regarding the way they organized their troops at attack , at the points in the war where they had numerical superiority ?
How so ?
I understand and i could be wrong that they still didn't use their tanks like the Germans did , as the tip of the spear that would encircle enemy lines and destroy them. They used a different approach with their army. Mass of everything in abundance (tanks ,artillery , infantry) for the victory.
(sorry about my lack of fluency as English is not my first language)
The bad planning of Operation Barbarossa , on a logistical , on the level of production or even a technological level has been repeated several times. And that had a lot to do with the Germans underestimating the Russians . However to be frank many of their miscalculations had a lot to do with them underestimating Russia itself or not making the correct adjustments in their planning.
The Germans also underestimated the Russians ability to mobilize men and resources for their war effort more rapidly than they would as their situation seemed more futile and was futile. And they where ready to pay the cost for it.
My question is , like the egg or the chicken anecdote , whether the Germans underestimation of the Russians had to do with Hitler's ideology and that lead to the Germans not utilizing or creating and organizing an effective spy network from which to gain the information needed ?
Or if the results of their current spy network gave to Hitler the confidence to do what ideologically he saw as his duty to do.
The issue of German or Russian spy networks is i believe an extremely important issue that was strangely not discussed here.
Then there is the issue that at 41 after the purges , the Russians also faced serious problems. so other than ideological reasons those serious problems the Russians faced may been another reason for a maybe accidental and not made in purpose underestimation of the Russians by Hitler and the Germans. Though still a mistake .
I enjoyed reading you all , especially Doppleganger and Monty.
Edit : Another issue/question is the Red Army adapting to the field. Yes on a tactical level Germans often had better commanders. On a minor-tactical one ? I think the Russians where constantly using their environment to their advantage in a way the Germans couldn't do. I am not talking about large scale battles but about the way the Russians improvised and used the what they had on each location to create defenses and fierce resistance to the Germans. Better adaptability of the Russians in general is not to be taken for granted , and i think it was another factor for the victory of the Russians. ( there was a series of many small battles over russian positions all over Russia the Germans couldn't break , this also happened in Stalingrand i believe.)
Another issue i would like to be examined would be the effect of Russian artillery in the world. Everyone talks about T34 but what about Russian artillery in comparison with german artillery , and german tactics ?
Another question regarding Russian tactics. Would it been better for them to have chosen a different tactics regarding the way they organized their troops at attack , at the points in the war where they had numerical superiority ?
How so ?
I understand and i could be wrong that they still didn't use their tanks like the Germans did , as the tip of the spear that would encircle enemy lines and destroy them. They used a different approach with their army. Mass of everything in abundance (tanks ,artillery , infantry) for the victory.
(sorry about my lack of fluency as English is not my first language)
Last edited:
By the way i believe that Russia would not have attacked Germany if Hitler didn't invade.
There is no way they could. After operation marita and the capture of Greece there where a lot of things he could have done (almost everything) including doing nothing , that would been more effective than executing operation Barbarossa.
Thankfully he did not and europe did not fall into German hands though the parts that did payed a big price for they time they where occupied.
There is no way they could. After operation marita and the capture of Greece there where a lot of things he could have done (almost everything) including doing nothing , that would been more effective than executing operation Barbarossa.
Thankfully he did not and europe did not fall into German hands though the parts that did payed a big price for they time they where occupied.
Another strange idea. How about the Germans after their triumphs in Russia , and Ukraine , attempted to withdraw as much as they could creating a line they could defend in Russia , or simply chosen to not attack the Russians at Moscow , Stalingrad or anywhere at all , and let them attack them. (maybe block the cities , or withdraw , i am not sure).
Attempt to either blood the Russians out of their manpower or and , to use the regions more effectively to reinforce the troops and consolidate their gains on that front.
Maybe i am completely out of touch here and saying something that was not historically plausible.
Attempt to either blood the Russians out of their manpower or and , to use the regions more effectively to reinforce the troops and consolidate their gains on that front.
Maybe i am completely out of touch here and saying something that was not historically plausible.
Last edited:
I had to do a bit of reading on this.
It seems that hitler split his forces to take stalingrad and the Caucasus.
I think hitler should have the total forces to first take stalingrad, then the Caucasus. IF stalingrad looked bad and would be a long hard fight, fall out, get the Caucasus, then guard them.
Mrjoker, the problem i see with bleeding russia dry is that they vastly outnumber the germans. They could have tried, but im positive russia would prevail with their manpower.
About spies, the russians had some top spy that got information straight from someone in hitlers group, so the russians knew every plan hitler made against russia. The spie was never found out, but that spyhelped win.