Would have been very diffrent if he had done that & consolidated built up a manufacturing base etc. Perhaps taking Africa as well or middle East for resources. Going after the lot & Russia on your own was somewhat ambitious. Still would not have changed much though I think US might have tested the A bomb on Berlin instead.
Why did Germany lose WW2?
Would have been very diffrent if he had done that & consolidated built up a manufacturing base etc. Perhaps taking Africa as well or middle East for resources. Going after the lot & Russia on your own was somewhat ambitious. Still would not have changed much though I think US might have tested the A bomb on Berlin instead.
He had NOT poured 80 % of his resources on the Eastern Front in june 1944 :most of the Luftwaffe was NOT in the East .
The strength of theWehrmacht was some 8 million;the Field Army :4 million,of which 2.6 million in the East
Supostat
Active member
Luftwaffe actually was often transposed from the theatre to theatre depending where to most intensive of decisive battles were planned or had place.
mmarsh
Active member
By June 6 1944 there wasn't much of a Luftwaffe to talk about east or west. Do you know how many aircraft were available to counter the Normandy landings? 2. The few squadrons remaining were tasking with defending the Reich.
80% was slightly high, its was about about 60% with another roughly 10% in Northern Europe. The point still remains, even if they had shifted all 88 Divisions stationed in the western front and Scandinavia the result would have been the same.
including Med. and Norway):4551Yes,main German mistake was war in the East.Germans had very bad intelligence info about Red army( thay supposed that Soviets had aprox. 150 ingantry divisions,15 cavalery divisions and 10-15 tank brigades).Thats way,Germans think tat war will take 3 months.
Second main failure - Germans dont mobilezed thair economy for military needs until 1943.
Third - Germans had weak allies in Europe (Romanians,Italians etc.)
After Stalingrad battle strategic initiative came to russian hands,and Germans had no chance to win war in the East.
Second main failure - Germans dont mobilezed thair economy for military needs until 1943.
Third - Germans had weak allies in Europe (Romanians,Italians etc.)
After Stalingrad battle strategic initiative came to russian hands,and Germans had no chance to win war in the East.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
The problem with this is that the whole motivation for the war was focused on the east, when people talk of Lebensraum it was always mean't to be the vast regions of western Russia and the Ukraine not France or Britain therefore to say that the war in the east was a mistake ignores the fact that it was always going to happen.
As for Stalingrad I don't believe it was a mistake as it had to be taken to protect the northern flank of Army Group A, the mistake was to have stopped to rest on the outskirts of Stalingrad thus giving the Russians time to defend it, had the Sixth Army pushed on for even a few days more they would have cleared the Don Bend and then troops would have been syphoned out of Stalingrad thus strengthening the flanks of the 6th Army.
In the end the destruction of the 6th Army was the fault of Friedrich Paulus who simply failed to understand the mistake he was making (probably through over confidence) and committed the 6th Army to a street fight that should never have happened.
I do agree however that the Germans seriously underestimated the Russians capability to absorb losses and its reserve strength.
As for Stalingrad I don't believe it was a mistake as it had to be taken to protect the northern flank of Army Group A, the mistake was to have stopped to rest on the outskirts of Stalingrad thus giving the Russians time to defend it, had the Sixth Army pushed on for even a few days more they would have cleared the Don Bend and then troops would have been syphoned out of Stalingrad thus strengthening the flanks of the 6th Army.
In the end the destruction of the 6th Army was the fault of Friedrich Paulus who simply failed to understand the mistake he was making (probably through over confidence) and committed the 6th Army to a street fight that should never have happened.
I do agree however that the Germans seriously underestimated the Russians capability to absorb losses and its reserve strength.
on the first "failure":this is irrelevant,what would the Germans have done,if they knew the real situation of the Soviet Army ?
on the second "failure" :this is a myth:Germany was mobilizing already in 1939 (a good source is 'the wages of destruction' by A.Tooze)
on the third "failure" :this is no failure,the German allies were weak,but there was nothing Germany could do about .
Seehund
Banned
Why did Germany lose World War 2?
In point form:
1. Fighting a war on two (or three) fronts.
2. Fighting silly odds. Deciding to attack Russia was a bad idea, as well as declaring war on the US. Both of these countries could substantially outproduce Germany. Although Germany took the initiative both times, they may have had little choice. The United States would have entered the war one way or another due to the fact that Britian was their closest ally and they could not sit and watch them be destroyed by Germany.
3. Leadership. Adolf Hitler assumed personal operational command of the German armed forces and did not know how to develop effective tactics and strategies. Examples abound: attacking Stalingrad instead of Moscow, failing to follow through with the invasion of Britain, the development of the Me 262 as a bomber, setting Panzer and infantry rally points hundreds of miles behind enemy lines, failing to divert sufficient troops to Rommel in North Africa, and failing to mop up the BEF at Dunkirk.
4. Poor choice of allies. The alliance with Italy was a millstone round the Nazis' neck. Japan would only have made sense as an ally if it had attacked the Soviet Union in the Far East. Hitler's main alliance was based on ideology, not on shared interests. The other less powerful Axis states like Hungary and Romania tended to follow in step with Germany in an effort to gain territory.
The key year to look at is 1941. At the start of the year Germany had the initiative; but by the end of the year Hitler had thrown away that avantage. Early in the year Britain and the Commonwealth were of course still fighting, but their chances of invading and defeating Germany were nil. During 1941 Germany attacked the Soviet Union and declared war on the U.S. From December 1941 on Germany found itself reacting to events - which was a huge disadvantage. 1942 became the 'make or break' year for Germany, and after Stalingrad, Germany was only able to prolong the war - not win it or even negotiate a tolerable peace treaty.
84RFK
Active member
Seehund has some valid points here, and #2. Silly odds. might be the most important.
The Soviet production capability wasn't at all that impressive, except for the quantity, but the Russians have a tendency to prefer quantity over quality.
But fact is that the German empire was beaten by the US industry in WW.I and that the German resources was strained allready in 1941.
And that's not limited to steel, oil and rubber, as most often mentioned, but also the food resources needed to feed the German population (and their allies) and the amount of prisoners in different types of camps, and POW's.
The Germans was on strict rations already in early 1940, and it didn't turn much better in the years following.
I dare say that the vast agricultural areas of Ukraine was a goal in 1941 in order to save the third reich from starvation.
The Soviet production capability wasn't at all that impressive, except for the quantity, but the Russians have a tendency to prefer quantity over quality.
But fact is that the German empire was beaten by the US industry in WW.I and that the German resources was strained allready in 1941.
And that's not limited to steel, oil and rubber, as most often mentioned, but also the food resources needed to feed the German population (and their allies) and the amount of prisoners in different types of camps, and POW's.
The Germans was on strict rations already in early 1940, and it didn't turn much better in the years following.
I dare say that the vast agricultural areas of Ukraine was a goal in 1941 in order to save the third reich from starvation.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I disagree with point 1. Britain and the Commonwealth were never going to be a threat to a German dominated Europe so a war on 2-3 fronts was not a problem as long as US resources stayed out of the war.
I agree that they really need to decide what they wanted to achieve in North Africa and commit the troops needed to meet those goals however I think it worth pointing out that it was never Rommels mission to capture Cairo he was just there to give the Italians some backbone.
I agree that they really need to decide what they wanted to achieve in North Africa and commit the troops needed to meet those goals however I think it worth pointing out that it was never Rommels mission to capture Cairo he was just there to give the Italians some backbone.
I must disagree on all 4 points
1) 2 front war :this was forced upon Germany and was not the cause of its defeat .
2)DOW on the US :war with the US was inevitable,attack on the SU :there was no alternative
3)Hitler's leadership :this was not the cause of Germany's defeat,I doubt even it was influencing the outcome of the war.ONE exemple
unkirk :that the Germans failed to "mop up" the BEF is wrong :it only was 50 % of the BEF,and,even it was captured,Britain would continue the fight . An other point:the decision to stop was taken by von Rundstedt .4)The allies :Germany had the allies it could have,there were no other ones .
Already in june 1940,Germany had lost the initiative :Britan decided to continue the war,and there was nothing Germany could do against it .
Seehund
Banned
All of these assessments we each have is called counterfactual history. None of us can come with a 100% realistic estimate of how the war would develop. We can come with a Appraisal but we can never know. A military plane is only perfect until the first shot is fired.
England had been in a desperate situation without the bulk of it´s professional army. It could have taken several years to build a powerful new army. The situation in England in May / June 1940 could probably led to peace negotiations between England and Hitler. Hitler could then sit in power in Europe and have only the Soviet Union as a potential enemy. U.S. would not have had any real opportunities to intervene in Europe.
This is ONLY my personal evaluation and I can never know if that's what would happen. We only know what actually happened. One can then guess at what the likely outcome would be - but it will always be a guess. You can never take out a patent on the truth of an event that never happened.
England had been in a desperate situation without the bulk of it´s professional army. It could have taken several years to build a powerful new army. The situation in England in May / June 1940 could probably led to peace negotiations between England and Hitler. Hitler could then sit in power in Europe and have only the Soviet Union as a potential enemy. U.S. would not have had any real opportunities to intervene in Europe.
This is ONLY my personal evaluation and I can never know if that's what would happen. We only know what actually happened. One can then guess at what the likely outcome would be - but it will always be a guess. You can never take out a patent on the truth of an event that never happened.
I believe Peter Flemings book 'Operation Sea Lion' is a invaluable source on this.
http://www.amazon.com/Operation-Sea-Lion-Grand-Strategy/dp/0330242113
The one point that is the most horrifying is if the Germans freed their British Pow's and declared a unilateral cease fire might have lead to a 'peace'.
OMG. Thank God that Hitler didn't consider that...
Oh, btw Peter was the older brother of Ian Fleming of James Bond fame...
http://www.amazon.com/Operation-Sea-Lion-Grand-Strategy/dp/0330242113
The one point that is the most horrifying is if the Germans freed their British Pow's and declared a unilateral cease fire might have lead to a 'peace'.
OMG. Thank God that Hitler didn't consider that...
Oh, btw Peter was the older brother of Ian Fleming of James Bond fame...
mmarsh
Active member
Ill add two more:
1. The lack of a truly motorized army. Contrary to most propaganda the German Army was largely unmotorized. Using horse drawn wagons to carry supplies and equipment and most of the Wehrmacht with the exception of the panzergrendiers walked into battle. The slowness of his army given the vast distances it had to cross in Russia and North Africa proved disastrous.
The Allies on the other hand were almost completely motorized.
2. The absolute failure of German Military Intelligence. Not only were its estimations of enemy strength almost completely wrong (leading to heavy German losses in the BoB, Crete and in Russia), failed to identify key enemy threats (the importance of Radar Installations in the BoB, the T-34 tank, and the true location of operation Overlord. they also failed to realize that there own services were compromised both their secret code (ENIGMA) and also of all of their UK agents in 1942 had all been arrested and had been turned into double agents feeding useless information back into Germany. At the same instance the Germans were infiltrated at some of the highest levels by Allies intelligence operatives.
Last edited:
LeEnfield
Active member
There are a lot of things that are not being taken into consideration....
[1] Once Churchill had taken over the leadership of the country then any idea of a deal with Hitler was at an end...Once lord Halifax had been side lined who had been pushing for a deal then we were in it to the bitter end.
[2] The lack of a long range German heavy bomber also paid a part in all of this as it there were so many targets that the Germans could not reach. Now the Me 262 was mentioned but Britain had the Meteor to counter it. Before any says the Me 262 was faster I will remind you that just a few weeks after the war the Meteor took the Air speed record at 611 mph and had far more reliable engines than the 262.
[3] Many people over look the fact that eight million Indians volunteered to fight for Britain the largest volunteer army ever known, and they were good soldiers. These soldiers fought with great distinction in Africa and Italy in WW2 and in France in WW1. They also took on the Japanese as well, yet you never hear much about them.
[3] The comments about the quality of Russian weapons, well that T34 was far better than the Sherman it was tougher, and better armed, and the upgrades that were made made it as good as any German tank in WW2. Also the Russian turned them in vast numbers.
[4] When you think that Britain was reading there coded messages as quick as they were with out them knowing it then they were on a loser.
[5] At the start of the war most of the Allied countries just were not ready for it which gave both Germany and Japan the advantage but this gradually slipped away from them
[6] Now Hitler always stated he did not want to fight on two fronts at the same time yet wound up fighting on many different fronts and against such numbers he was never going to win
[1] Once Churchill had taken over the leadership of the country then any idea of a deal with Hitler was at an end...Once lord Halifax had been side lined who had been pushing for a deal then we were in it to the bitter end.
[2] The lack of a long range German heavy bomber also paid a part in all of this as it there were so many targets that the Germans could not reach. Now the Me 262 was mentioned but Britain had the Meteor to counter it. Before any says the Me 262 was faster I will remind you that just a few weeks after the war the Meteor took the Air speed record at 611 mph and had far more reliable engines than the 262.
[3] Many people over look the fact that eight million Indians volunteered to fight for Britain the largest volunteer army ever known, and they were good soldiers. These soldiers fought with great distinction in Africa and Italy in WW2 and in France in WW1. They also took on the Japanese as well, yet you never hear much about them.
[3] The comments about the quality of Russian weapons, well that T34 was far better than the Sherman it was tougher, and better armed, and the upgrades that were made made it as good as any German tank in WW2. Also the Russian turned them in vast numbers.
[4] When you think that Britain was reading there coded messages as quick as they were with out them knowing it then they were on a loser.
[5] At the start of the war most of the Allied countries just were not ready for it which gave both Germany and Japan the advantage but this gradually slipped away from them
[6] Now Hitler always stated he did not want to fight on two fronts at the same time yet wound up fighting on many different fronts and against such numbers he was never going to win
I have to disagree on the importance of the failure of the Geman Intelligence :IMHO,this is a gross exageration .
Ex:the role of Radar in the BoB:this role has been much exagerated,whatever,with or without the Radar,Germany would lose the BoB.
:the role of the T34 in 1941:this is mainly a myth :the Germans advanced to Moscow,and the few T34 could not prevent this .Whatever,with or without the T34,Barbarossa would fail .
:the true location of Overlord
n 6 june,the Germans were sending to Normandy everything that was available and usefull,although they were not sure that Normandy would be the main attack:they could not take the risk .
:the importance of Enigma also is mainly a myth.
Ex:the role of Radar in the BoB:this role has been much exagerated,whatever,with or without the Radar,Germany would lose the BoB.
:the role of the T34 in 1941:this is mainly a myth :the Germans advanced to Moscow,and the few T34 could not prevent this .Whatever,with or without the T34,Barbarossa would fail .
:the true location of Overlord
n 6 june,the Germans were sending to Normandy everything that was available and usefull,although they were not sure that Normandy would be the main attack:they could not take the risk .:the importance of Enigma also is mainly a myth.
LeEnfield
Active member
The Engima.......As Britain was reading the orders sent out often before Germans how do reckon that it did not affect war. Britain informed Russia before the Germany first attacked it, and they gave the Russian the German attack plan for Kursk, they knew where the Germans submarines were at all times from the middle of the war and forced them out of the Atlantic. They knew of all convoys going to North Africa and what ships were carrying what and they made sure as far as possible that these ships never arrived, and most of them never did.
Radar......With the small numbers of fighters in the RAF they would have unable to patrol the sky for that amount of time. Radar allowed them to stay on the ground till they were needed and were directed to the point of interception. This gave the RAF the maximum amount over coverage for each attack.
The T34 production had started just before Germany invaded Russia but then they tore the factories down and moved to the other side of the Ural's outside the range of German Bombers and they were not being produced in large numbers for quite a while But by the time the Battle of Kursk took place then they appeared in large numbers.
Radar......With the small numbers of fighters in the RAF they would have unable to patrol the sky for that amount of time. Radar allowed them to stay on the ground till they were needed and were directed to the point of interception. This gave the RAF the maximum amount over coverage for each attack.
The T34 production had started just before Germany invaded Russia but then they tore the factories down and moved to the other side of the Ural's outside the range of German Bombers and they were not being produced in large numbers for quite a while But by the time the Battle of Kursk took place then they appeared in large numbers.
I expected these ,but,
1)as most of the German divisions were transferred to the east only in the last weeks/days,the British information on the nearing German attack,only had limited value .There also is the point that the British did not know of the Schwerpunkt and the German order of battle .
2) if the allies knew were the UBoats were,how could the Germans sink so much merchant ships .
3) about the convoys to NA,the average losses were not that high,and,the convoys were not that important for the Germans:if less ships were sunk,more supplies would arrive ...in Tripoli,but could not go to the front,due to the bad railroad infrastructure .
4) that the British did give the plans of Citadelle to the Soviets is a myth spreaded after the war with the meaning:the stupid Soviets only could win against the Germans ,because we,the West,were giving them the German plans .
5)Radar and the BoB:radar was very primitive these days,and could not direct the B ritish fighters (much stronger than you think) to the point of interception .
The radarposts were at the coast,and,when the Germand had passed the radar,there was no possibility to know the number of aircraft(no IFF),the type of aircraft,height ,speed,direction:the Germans could and did change direction .
6)about the T 34:if the Germand knew of their existence,what would change ? Nothing .
7)at certain periods,the KM also was reading the British codes,and this did not prevent the German defeat in the Battle of the Atlantic
8)the H2S aircraft radar was much more important for the Battle of the Atlantic,than Enigma .