Why did Germany lose WW2?

For those who are interested in logistics,I highly recommend :

Feeding Mars:the role of Logistics in the German defeat in Normandy(by Russell Hart)
published in War in History
 
MontyB said:
Actually I think the Fortitude operations kind of failed, the greatest deception in terms of the landings were not allied deceptions but German thinking.
In 1940 when the Germans were planning Operation Sealion they believed that it would be necessary to land 13 Divisions on the English coast so I think that when the Allies landed on the Normandy beaches with only 5 Divisions they felt it had to be a feint rather than the actual landings.
Click to expand...

One of the most important things of Fortitude was the appointment of Patton as the commander. The Germans were almost sure that Patton would command the invasion. When he visited the pyramids in Egypt the Germans even thought the invasion would start from there.
 
VDKMS said:
One of the most important things of Fortitude was the appointment of Patton as the commander. The Germans were almost sure that Patton would command the invasion. When he visited the pyramids in Egypt the Germans even thought the invasion would start from there.
Click to expand...

Now I am going to go a little bit lljadw here and say that from what I can tell Pattons mythic stature amongst the Germans was pretty much a myth.
As noted here:

One piece of the Patton story, however, is pure myth: that Patton was the subject of close scrutiny by the Germans, who anticipated his attacks in fearful admiration. General Patton was not, as his biographer Martin Blumenson wrote in The Patton Papers: 1885–1940, a "hero even to professional German officers who respected him as the adversary they most feared in battle." Nor was he, as Ladislas Farago claimed in his book Patton, regarded by the Germans "as their most dangerous adversary in the field…. For a while the Germans watched the comings and goings of Patton like rubbernecked spectators following a tennis ball at Wimbleton." In fact, for most of the war the Germans barely took notice.
Click to expand...

http://www.historynet.com/patton-the-german-view.htm

I like the ending of that article:
Patton deserves his status as a legendary leader—but posterity deserves fact and not myth. The Germans did not track Patton's movements as the key to Allied intentions. Hitler does not appear to have thought often of Patton, if at all. The Germans considered Patton a hesitant commanding general in the scrum of position warfare. They never raised his name in the context of worthy strategists. But they respected him in their own demanding terms as a great Panzer General.
Click to expand...
 
A little of topic but IMHO, Ike was looking to make a successful beach head with minimal casualties. If Patton would have been a commander during D-Day, there would have been more casualties and fear into the allied troops. The allied nations already seen Patton as a Nazi commander in an Allied uniform. Patton only gained fame from the lives of his men. I once seen on a documentary that the Nazi's would have considered Patton the same status as an SS Nazi Fanatic if he were been in the German military. Thats why once in a while they had to put Patton in his place.
Oh one last thing they always say Patton saved the men in Bastogne, He did breakthrough however the re-supplying, re-enforcements and air force harassment on the Germans, caused the retreat/surrendering of German troops. Brigadier General Anthony C. McAuliffe re-grouped , organized and the Germans were being pushed back along the whole western front. The whole allied army were well fed, had superior weapons and never looked back from that point on. The American Army Also tried to attempt to surround the Germans In a pincer attack, but most of the Germans were surrendering anyways. If Britain and France would have fought a modern war, they might have held the Germans back early in the war.The Germans were forced into the war with Russia, because Russia was invading territories in which the Germans were obtaining vital metal ore. Russia just wanted to make a huge border around Russia To protect them from a German Blitzkrieg. Si if Adolph Would have went straight for Moscow, the Germans would have had the clothing and supplies to take Stalingrad, The Urals etc...Adolph was fighting a war of attrition on 2 major fronts. My information comes from the History channel, Military channel, PBS etc...
 
I think they are great places to start learning and develop an interest however there are a lot of old documentaries especially on WW2 that when made were ground breaking but now are horribly out of date, an good example of this would be the World at War series.
 
IMHO,the following statements are very questionable
1)Russia was invading territories in which the Germand were obtaining vital minal ore
2)This forced Germany to attack the SU
3)If Adolf had gone straight for Moscow,the Germans would have had the clothing and supplies to take Stalingrad,the Urals,etc
On point 1 :while the SU attacked Finland in 1939(Finland having tin ore),this was totally irrelevant for the German attack on the SU
On point 3:from what I know,a German attack on Moscow in september 1941 (instead of october) was out of the question for logistical reasons.
I don't also see the connection with Stalingrad and the Urals :why would the Germans have more clothing 8-) and supplies ?
 
I suspect he is referring to the Romanian connection, the Russians had been eyeing up chunks of the area and were somewhat put out when German troops moved into the region.
 
I know:the Soviets did occupy Bessarabia and Buchovina in the summer of WWII and were very near by the Romanian oil fields(but,the fact remains that they did not occupy the oil fields,although they could do this).Some weeks later,a German division was sent to Romania .
But,this had no influence on the German decision to attack the SU.
 
MontyB said:
I think they are great places to start learning and develop an interest however there are a lot of old documentaries especially on WW2 that when made were ground breaking but now are horribly out of date, an good example of this would be the World at War series.
Click to expand...

I like the old World at War, I was watching it as a kid. I still do from time to time. Today, I am so lazy so I prefer to watch a documentary about the old war, instead of reading a darn book. The docs take one hour, to read a few days. I read so much at my work so I don't want to do so when I am home. You read a lot, MontyB?
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
I like the old World at War, I was watching it as a kid. I still do from time to time. Today, I am so lazy so I prefer to watch a documentary about the old war, instead of reading a darn book. The docs take one hour, to read a few days. I read so much at my work so I don't want to do so when I am home. You read a lot, MontyB?
Click to expand...

I spend a lot of time reading, I find it relaxing.

My problem is not that "World at War" was a bad documentary because it wasn't but unfortunately it was made before a lot of information was declassified and it was made during a period where we did not question the "official" version of WW2 as written by the victors so it is now horribly out of date and in a number of cases inaccurate.
 
MontyB said:
I spend a lot of time reading, I find it relaxing.

My problem is not that "World at War" was a bad documentary because it wasn't but unfortunately it was made before a lot of information was declassified and it was made during a period where we did not question the "official" version of WW2 as written by the victors so it is now horribly out of date and in a number of cases inaccurate.
Click to expand...

It is really relaxing, the first days of every vacation, I isolate myself and read. I am more into the human facet of the war so I always try to find things like that. I like Cornelius Ryan, many others, such as Beever (spelling) are quite dry. Can you give me others to read?
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
It is really relaxing, the first days of every vacation, I isolate myself and read. I am more into the human facet of the war so I always try to find things like that. I like Cornelius Ryan, many others, such as Beever (spelling) are quite dry. Can you give me others to read?
Click to expand...

I am not sure I can help you much on books as I tend to look at the technical side of the war rather than the human side (I suspect it has something to do with the engineering background).

I liked:
- Cassino: The Hollow Victory - The Battle for Rome, January-June, 1944
- Berlin: The Downfall 1945 by Antony Beevor (I know you have said you don't like him but some of his books are better than others I would avoid his book on Crete unless you need some sleep).

Currently I am reading a list and break down of the Fuehrer Directives 1942-1945 and it is not hard to see how things went pear shaped for the Germans when given the level of micromanagement that went on.
 
MontyB said:
I am not sure I can help you much on books as I tend to look at the technical side of the war rather than the human side (I suspect it has something to do with the engineering background).

I liked:
- Cassino: The Hollow Victory - The Battle for Rome, January-June, 1944
- Berlin: The Downfall 1945 by Antony Beevor (I know you have said you don't like him but some of his books are better than others I would avoid his book on Crete unless you need some sleep).

Currently I am reading a list and break down of the Fuehrer Directives 1942-1945 and it is not hard to see how things went pear shaped for the Germans when given the level of micromanagement that went on.
Click to expand...


Beever is not that bad, it comes with the territory. It is a difference if the author bases his story to the real participants than to diaries and official documents, but WWII was not yesterday so to speak. I am more interested in the Pacific than the Europe theatres of war. (Damn Discovery Channel and History Channel)
 
Der Alte said:
IMHO there is no doubt that the breaking of the German Enigma code was the one that gave the Allies the greatest strategic advantage in the war.

And as with so much else in life there will always be differing opinions on this topic. So the conclusion must be that we are some who believe in ULTRA and some who doubt its significance in the outcome of WWII.

All in all, a good discussion, gentleman. :cheers:
Click to expand...
Here is something I found rather interesting...
Siegfried1.png


Siegfried2.png

That is a translated copy of a senior German directive on information security prior to the planning of Operation Braunschweig.

Seems to me there was at least an understanding that communications were not secure.
 
I have run into an interesting comment relating to this thread, in order to work out why Germany lost the war you would first have to determine what the victory conditions were.

Given that world domination would have required control of the oceans and that Germany was no where near having the naval assets to achieve this it must be assumed that victory for the 3rd Reich could only have been control of the European continent.
 
I don't think the Nazi Regime had any serious pre-defined victory conditions and if they did, they were flawed. In 1939, when Germany and the USSR signed the Pact of Steel, a loose plan was drawn up that would divide the entire planet into 4 zones of control, one zone each for the 2 signature nations and the other 2 for Italy and Japan. It was a tenuous, ridiculous draft that had no basis in reality.

Since it was formed Germany has always been brilliant at the operational level but muddled and unfocused at the grand strategic level. So it was in WW2. There was no grand plan or pre-defined victory conditions as far as I can tell.

@BritinAfrica. You're right, I meant the Treaty of Non-Aggression.
 
Last edited:
That seems incredibly odd for a people defined by their organisational skills though.

While I accept that nothing was written down as a grand plan the war was effectively going to end with the defeat of Russia as there was simply no where else they could go.
 
Russia didn't sign the pact of steel, it was Italy who signed it, witnessed by Count Galeazzo Ciano for Italy and Joachim von Ribbentrop for Germany.

German and Russia signed the non aggression pact.
 
Hitler's aims should not be a surprise to students of Mein Kampf.

1. To abolish the Treaty of Versailles.
The Versailles Treaty is worthless. 60 million German hearts and minds are on fire with anger and shame. They will cry out ‘We want war!’

2. To expand German territory.
It will be the duty of German foreign policy to get large spaces to feed and house the growing population of Germany. Destiny points us towards Russia.

3. To defeat Communism.
The menace of Russia hangs over Germany. All our strength is needed to rescue our nation from this international snake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top