Why did Germany lose WW2?

[Marder_LT]

Speaking on economic - Hitler's militarisation went at high inflation cost and cutting lots from ordinary people. Democratic countries from this point of view had disadvantage: it was impossible to say "canons instead of butter"...
Yes, Germany had slave work. Soviet union too had it. However, slave workers in Germany did some sabotage which is impossible with freewilling workers.
Speaking on war in "mid 1930s" - I am afraid I had to disagree. Germany was weak, Hitler's own stuff told that at the time of czechoslovakia Wehrmacht had munition for some 1 month. At the time when Germany enetered Ruhr district, Hitler himself told that if France waas to attack 'we would have forced to retreat". Germany with its Panzer1 tanks and just born airforce was weak. It had little war fleet and any of the Allies: France, England, US - could have defeat it. However,due to various reasons this did not happen.
Britain: it had the best fleet in the world. It was possible for British fleet to seek out any enemy ship and sunk it. What are the fronts Britain was fighting at? One front - Western (Germany and occupied Europe), second front - Africa (fighting Vichy and Axis forces). On the Western front British bombers were able to bomb, they were mostly on offence. The second front ended with complete victory.
In fact, the war for Nazi was lost with:
1) occupation of France. It turned all the West against Hitler;
2) attack on Soviet Union as it was under-estimated enemy;
3) Japanese attack on Pearl harbor: US came into war.

 

[perseus]

Welcome to the forums Marder_LT. You provide an en excellent summing up of the situation in your 7 points.

In your last post I agree Germany was weak in the mid 30s (someone else on here who would strongly agree with you on this point) in fact didn't Germany need to occupy Czechoslovakia to obtain the Skoda tanks? without these perhaps the offensive in the west wouldn't have been possible so Chamberlain didn't really buy time in failing to give Czechoslovakia support.

I probably disagree that Britain had the strongest navy though. Most capital ships were of WW1 vintage and the carrier aircraft in the early 40s looked as if they came from WW1 with performance little better. They would have been mincemeat against the Japanese navy, hence I believe if Germany and Japan could have collaborated better than they did then Britain could have been brought to heel very quickly .

 

[LeEnfield]

Marder..........Once Hitler came to power Germany became a dictatorship....Where as Britain and France where still Democracy's, now both Britain and France where physically and fianacially exhausted from WW1. Now as they had sell the idea of another war to the people of these countries and expect to get elected, some how or other they felt that this could not be done. When Chamberlain came back from Munich with the document which he claimed promised peace in our time he was greeted as a hero till it went tits up.
The USA was in the same boat as France and Britain in selling a war to a People that did not want one, lets face there was huge lobby in the US not to help Britain in any way in case they dragged into a war. this is the difference between a Democracy and a dictatorship where you are elected by the people to carry out their will.


The Royal Navy........now it had NO capital ships built since the end of WW1 and although still the largest Navy in the world was hard pushed to try and contain Germany's modern pocket Battleships, fight a U boat war in the Atlantic and fight another modern navy, in the shape of the Italians, now there were several large battles in the Med and although we got the better of them this fleet still poised a threat and could not be ignored.
The Royal Air Force........Now you state that they were able to bomb and were on the offencive, well yes they were with little or no affect. The Blenheim's were shot out of the sky, the Fairy Battles where shot down by the Squadrons as they were so slow and poorly armed. The RAF where still using the Bombay and Whitley bombers to bomb Germany until the Wellington came into service in the late 1940 and even that was a two engine bomber and it was not until 1941 did the first of the four engine bombers start to be delivered and you must remember that 60% of all the air crews were killed in action.

The British and Commonwealth Army which had lost most of it's obsolete equipment at Dunkirk was fighting a battle against huge odds in the Western desert. The fact that they destroyed a huge Italian Army out there which out numbered them about ten to one never gets much credit.

Now you say that Hitler did not have any or much information on the Russian, now as the Germans had a huge military Mission in Russia and had been working with them on several Military projects are you suggesting that they did not know the state of the Russian forces

 

[Doppleganger]

In your last post I agree Germany was weak in the mid 30s (someone else on here who would strongly agree with you on this point) in fact didn't Germany need to occupy Czechoslovakia to obtain the Skoda tanks? without these perhaps the offensive in the west wouldn't have been possible so Chamberlain didn't really buy time in failing to give Czechoslovakia support.

Germany was precariously weak in the late 1930s and for the Polish campaign, which was not really a Blitzkrieg campaign in the proper sense. It amazed some German generals that Britain and France did not attack when the Wehrmacht was in Poland, Operation Saar aside. With a proper offensive the Allies could have marched right into Germany - there was only a light screening of 2nd echelon troops to oppose them.

In France itself, the Wehrmacht was largely equipped with Panzer Mk 1s and IIs, which were training machines and not designed for actual conflict. The Skoda tanks did indeed help out the Germans a great deal in France, until more Panzer IIIs and IVs could be built. On paper at least, the only area that the Germans had superiority in equipment quality and numbers was in the air. The Germans pressed 2 Skoda tank types into service and designated them the Panzer 35(t) and Panzer 38(t).

The offensive in the West still would have been possible, as it was the tactics and the element of surprise that won the Battle of France, not equipment quality.

 

[A Can of Man]

I think all that fuel they used up in the holocaust had a hand too.

 

[LeEnfield]

We were in just as bad shape as Germany, and there was not the heart in it for another fight with Germany at this stage. German troops always thought that they did not lose WW1 but had been sold sown the river by their politicians, so where more up to fight than any one else, as they had wrongs to right as they saw it

 

[mmarsh]

I think the primary reason Germany Lost was due to the same reason that the Kaiser, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, and even eventually the Roman Empire (although it took considerable longer).

Simply that their megomanic leader whose misplaced feeling of invincibilty caused them to overextend themselves. The fronts became too far from home, there were neither enough men nor supplies to cover the distance and that they had made too many enemies and not enough reliable Allies.

 

[senojekips]

^^^ I think that mmarsh has it in a nutshell ^^^

 

[Del Boy]

The thing is Churchill didn't win though, Stalin did.

No no Dop, you mustn't misquote me - I said that I would be Churchill trying to discourage him from going to war -- again!

But please always remember that in England we are still the champions of the whole world. We hold so many world championship titles.

We won all our wars, remember, even the American war of Independence ! (we let 'em have that one because it was a long way to go, and we liked them really.)

Now we are just a little bit tired.

Singing - Give me some men who are stout-hearted men
Who will fight for the right they adore.
Start me with ten who are stouthearted men
And I'll soon give you ten thousand more!

Are you singing there? Well, that's two of us then.


SERIOUSLY THOUGH - I do agree with Le and MM.

 

[senojekips]

It's a no brainer really.

 

[Del Boy]

I second that motion!

 

[Ollie Garchy]

We were in just as bad shape as Germany, and there was not the heart in it for another fight with Germany at this stage. German troops always thought that they did not lose WW1 but had been sold sown the river by their politicians, so where more up to fight than any one else, as they had wrongs to right as they saw it

(1) If England was in "bad shape", then why in the name of God did they declare war? The leadership obviously had some kind of plan or idea or something.

(2) The Germans did not lose WWI. WWI ended in an armistice. If you look up the word, you will see that 1918 was a negotiated peace. The problem for the "German soldiers" was that they were too busy getting involved in a civil war that turned an armistice into the Versailles defeat. Germany stabbed itself in the back...with quite a bit of help from Wilson.

(3) Germany lost the war because they never planned to fight it. Nor were they ever capable of fighting a war against an alliance consisting of the US, Br (Empire), USSR, and the French, etc.

 

[senojekips]

(1) If England was in "bad shape", then why in the name of God did they declare war? The leadership obviously had some kind of plan or idea or something.

It's called, "a moral obligation". Something obviously not considered by the German hierarchy of the time. Their (The Brits) "plan" was to try and stop Germany's expansionist policies hopefully before it grew into a repeat of WW I which was at that time, still within recent memory. Germany elected not to stop, the rest is history.

(3) Germany lost the war because they never planned to fight it. Nor were they ever capable of fighting a war against an alliance consisting of the US, Br (Empire), USSR, and the French, etc.

By that, do you mean to say that you think that the Germans were so stupid as to imagine that the Brits and their allies would just let them walk over every country in Europe without any form of reaction? I think the truth lies somewhere nearer the fact that Hitler thought he could "push" until the Brits were ready to declare war then he'd back off. Unfortunately he seriously underestimated their resolve. In short, he seriously overestimated his own ability as a strategist, his complete lack of ability in this regard is confirmed by his own military staff on any number of occasions throughout the ensuing war.

That was one of the main contributing factors in Germany's defeat.

And of course this begs the question, if Germany never planned to fight a war, why had they been secretly re-arming in contravention of the Versailles treaty? Of course they planned a war, how else would "Lebensraum" be gained. They certainly planned a war,.... in their dreams it was to be a war against smaller less well armed countries, unfortunately they never counted on the intervention of the Allies

 

[The Other Guy]

(1) If England was in "bad shape", then why in the name of God did they declare war? The leadership obviously had some kind of plan or idea or something.

They'd already sold Austria, Czechoslovakia, Luxembourg, Saarland, and Poland down the river, so they figured they'd better at least help France...

 

[Doppleganger]

Unfortunately he seriously underestimated their resolve. In short, he seriously overestimated his own ability as a strategist, his complete lack of ability in this regard is confirmed by his own military staff on any number of occasions throughout the ensuing war.

That was one of the main contributing factors in Germany's defeat.

Don't get too caught up in the hype of Hitler's lack of ability as a military strategist. Much of this stems from the memoirs of generals who understandably wanted to uphold themselves in the best light. Hitler was not classically trained at the German Generalstab colleges and so was looked upon as an amateur by the well heeled aristocratic officers who saw themselves as part of an elite club. Hitler made some great decisions early on in the war for Germany and in 1936, Hitler probably had more vision than the vast majority of the German Generalstab. For example:

1. He realised that the Schlieffen Plan (Halder's Plan was all but this) would not work again in WW2 and he recognized that the Sickle Cut plan proposed by Manstein (with help from Guderian) would be the best option.
2. He saw almost instantly the possibilities of all amoured divisions moving swiftly as spearheads, thus avoiding the trench war stalemate of the previous war.
3. His decision to send Guderian south in July 1941 to assist AGS with the capture of Kiev and the Ukraine resulted in the largest encirclement in history, with the largest casualties ever inflicted on an enemy army. Hitler was more interested in the destruction of the enemy forces in the field than the capture of prestige targets and this was fully in line with recognized German military doctrine since Scharnhorst.

The first problem with Hitler is that he severely underestimated his enemies (especially in Russia) based on warped racial prejudices. The second problem was that after the failed attempt at Moscow in December 1941 Hitler lost his nerve. Instead of allowing his best commanders their head he reigned them in and tried to do too much by himself, hence the phrase, Hitler's meddling. In the first years of the war, Hitler barely interfered once operations were underway. And there was nothing wrong with his ability as a strategist.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

And of course this begs the question, if Germany never planned to fight a war, why had they been secretly re-arming in contravention of the Versailles treaty? Of course they planned a war, how else would "Lebensraum" be gained. They certainly planned a war,.... in their dreams it was to be a war against smaller less well armed countries, unfortunately they never counted on the intervention of the Allies

I appreciate your points and your arguments. I would however like to point out that there are a couple of problems with your views.

(1) Germany was "secretly rearming". That much is a hard to disprove fact. The problem with this is that every other major power other than the US was openly rearming in the 1930s. How else would you explain the fact that the British fighter arm was larger than the German in 1940 or that the Soviet army was larger than the entire armed forces of the planet combined.

(2) Germany rescinded the Treaty of Versailles. And, Britain officially sanctioned this act with the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. In any case, the Treaty of Versailles held no validity by the mid-1930s. Or, do you think that the modern German army should be reduced to Versailles restrictions owing to the fact that the Allied Powers never cancelled it?

(3) A war against Poland is not a declaration of war on Britain. If it were, then the Soviet war against Poland in 1939 would have been seen as the same thing. In any case, Soviet territorial annexations were more significant than you might like to believe. After 1945, the Soviets controlled more territory than anything envisioned by Hitler.

 

[senojekips]

Don't get too caught up in the hype of Hitler's lack of ability as a military strategist. Much of this stems from the memoirs of generals who understandably wanted to uphold themselves in the best light. Hitler was not classically trained at the German Generalstab colleges and so was looked upon as an amateur by the well heeled aristocratic officers who saw themselves as part of an elite club.

A mixture of fact and fiction I feel. There is absolutely no doubt about Hitlers lack of ability as a strategist. The whole basis of his plan was at best the musings of a dreamer caught up in his own self importance. This basic trait was apparent in him even as a child and is remarked upon by those that knew him at this time.

As for the products of the Junkerschule seeing themselves as a well heeled club, Well,.... in their time, they were. This can also be seen be seen in the senior ranks among the allies, but in most cases it has no bearing whatsoever upon their ability to do their jobs in the military. They were in fact, the best people in their trade at the time.

The first problem with Hitler is that he severely underestimated his enemies (especially in Russia) based on warped racial prejudices. The second problem was that after the failed attempt at Moscow in December 1941 Hitler lost his nerve. Instead of allowing his best commanders their head he reigned them in and tried to do too much by himself, hence the phrase, Hitler's meddling. In the first years of the war, Hitler barely interfered once operations were underway. And there was nothing wrong with his ability as a strategist.

In the same paragraph you demonstrate the fact of his poor judgement and lack of strategic ability, then finally say there was nothing wrong with his ability??? I have never heard of a "good strategist" with "poor judgement" somehow it just doesn't add up.

No,... I'm afraid that this Hitler apologist argument has already been judged by the world and case closed for nearly half a century. Like a lot of "smart" men, he was far more assured of his own brilliance than those about him. The only evidence that has emerged in the intervening years only serves to support the original judgement. Constantly trying to pick his occasional "moments of brilliance" and strokes of good luck will never reverse the fact that he was an ill considered "dreamer" at best and a scheming mass murderer at worst.

 

[senojekips]

I appreciate your points and your arguments. I would however like to point out that there are a couple of problems with your views.

(1) Germany was "secretly rearming". That much is a hard to disprove fact. The problem with this is that every other major power other than the US was openly rearming in the 1930s. How else would you explain the fact that the British fighter arm was larger than the German in 1940 or that the Soviet army was larger than the entire armed forces of the planet combined.

(2) Germany rescinded the Treaty of Versailles. And, Britain officially sanctioned this act with the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. In any case, the Treaty of Versailles held no validity by the mid-1930s. Or, do you think that the modern German army should be reduced to Versailles restrictions owing to the fact that the Allied Powers never cancelled it?

Righto, let's just say that they were rearming leaving out any references to Versailles and "secretly" I say again, "Of course they planned a war, how else would "Lebensraum" be gained. They certainly planned a war,.... in their dreams it was to be a war against smaller less well armed countries, unfortunately they never counted on the intervention of the Allies"

(3) A war against Poland is not a declaration of war on Britain.

Poland was just the straw that broke the camel's back after the Sudetenland, Anschluss, re militarisation of the Rhineland and the rest of his attempts to see just how far he could push the boundaries

Like I said, "By that, do you mean to say that you think that the Germans were so stupid as to imagine that the Brits and their allies would just let them walk over every country in Europe one at a time without any form of reaction? I think the truth lies somewhere nearer the fact that Hitler thought he could "push" until the Brits were ready to declare war then he'd back off. Unfortunately he seriously underestimated their resolve. In short, he seriously overestimated his own ability as a strategist, his complete lack of ability in this regard is confirmed by his own military staff on any number of occasions throughout the ensuing war."

Your constant attention to insignificant minutiae seems to blind you to the real truth here. You appear to be constantly trying to justify Hitler's dreams by dissecting every judgement and action , the sad truth is, that the entire world including persons far better equipped to judge than you or I, have already taken this into account and the judgement has been handed down. Like I said in my post above, he was at best an ill informed dreamer and at worst a scheming mass murderer who dragged half of the Western world into a drawn out war which he lost. He was the Pol Pot of 1933.

 

[Doppleganger]

A mixture of fact and fiction I feel. There is absolutely no doubt about Hitlers lack of ability as a strategist.

Well there's obviously doubt as we're having a debate over it right? I'm not sure how much reading you've done on the events of the Eastern Front and German strategy from 1933 onwards in general but the more one reads the more one realizes that the public perception of Hitler as a talentless, raving loony who was a mere Corporal acting way above his pay grade is distorted and false. There can be little doubt that in their memoirs the likes of Manstein, Guderian, Hoth etc tended to blame Hitler for many of the things that went wrong. Hitler is often blamed for the failure at Kursk but this was an operation where he allowed his officers to have full authority over its planning and execution. Also bear in mind that Hitler was likely suffering from Parkinson's Disease which steadily got worse as the war went on. This might explain much of his behaviour in the last 2 years of the war.

In the same paragraph you demonstrate the fact of his poor judgement and lack of strategic ability, then finally say there was nothing wrong with his ability??? I have never heard of a "good strategist" with "poor judgement" somehow it just doesn't add up.

Well, if you're going to blame Hitler for the flawed plan that was Barbarossa (which most people state was Hitler's biggest mistake) then be prepared to blame most of the German Generalstab too as it was as much their plan as it was Hitler's. The vast majority believed that the Red Army would crumble in 6 weeks and this is coming from professional soldiers with years of formal training behind them. By some accounts Hitler wanted to halt the German Army on the Dnieper River line after the Kiev operation until Spring 1942 but allowed himself to be persuaded otherwise by professional soldiers today held up as master strategists and tactical geniuses. The likes of Guderian, Hoth, Bock, Kesselring all today lauded by military academies the world over yet history would prove them to be wrong and for Hitler to have been probably right.

Like a lot of "smart" men, he was far more assured of his own brilliance than those about him. The only evidence that has emerged in the intervening years only serves to support the original judgement. Constantly trying to pick his occasional "moments of brilliance" and strokes of good luck will never reverse the fact that he was an ill considered "dreamer" at best and a scheming mass murderer at worst.

You're utterly correct in your first sentence but he had more than just 'occasional' moments of brilliance. One does not seize control of the most powerful nation in Europe by just being a dreamer or a Corporal with ideas above his station. Hitler arguably was as much responsible for the German panzerwaffe as Guderian was, as Hitler created the conditions and saw the potential to allow development of it to flourish. Hitler was a mass murderer correct but he was far from the bumbling, lucky, psychotic raving loony that the western media has made him out to be.

 

[senojekips]

It's hardly a debate, as the world has answered this a thousand times over and the truth is known. Your reasoning that my views of Hitler is not correct, is just that, your view, unfortunately I feel that my view has many thousands of times more supporters than your own. History is the judge, walk down any street and ask anyone old enough to know. This horse was flogged to death 50 years ago, and is only making an occasional resurgence because of the fact that there is a new generation who never saw the real thing. Like all great con men he will always continue to suck in a few weak and/or morally bankrupt devotees. After all, there are people out there who still believe that Uri Geller could read peoples minds.

I often use the terms Nazi's, Hitler and "Germans" interchangeably, Yes I realise the differences, but in the context I am using the words, it doesn't really affect the argument, they were all guilty to a greater or lesser extent.

Hitler only rose to power because he had an easily led audience, the German people were still bitter over the outcome of WW I and anything seemed better than the other alternatives at that time, the Weimar republic was in turmoil and people were grabbing at straws, unfortunately for them, this straw turned into a bramble.

Once again his moments of "brilliance" lies in your own view and is not supported by world opinion. That"ll do me.