Why did Germany lose WW2?
Machiavelli
Active member
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/what-if-d-day-had-failed.htm
http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/genocide/ukraine_famine.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1038774/Holocaust-hunger-The-truth-Stalins-Great-Famine.html
Don't think any more words need to be said, or facts be argued.
But i am open for an cold war nazi germany specualtion, cause yeah, i think it could have been possible, if some events were handled differently. Again, Germany did not start the war in 1939 on 2 fronts. And operation Barbarossa, while difficult, could have worked too, its far from impossible. But for this, Hilter would have been more diplomatic and not use the holocaust scorched earth methods on russian people. You might underestimate, that Stalin was very unpopular in the sovjet regime at that time and the tide turned when it was revealed what Hitler had planned for the USSR, the Red Army was completely defeated in the surprise attacks leading to moscow, they recovered quickly with serious help by bad hitler holocaust agendas, motherland stalin propaganda and U.S. supplies.
The trucks were most important in that vast country a historican said.
U.S. had the supplies, but not the manpower, the Sovjets had the manpower, but not the supplies, GB had the intelligence and important technology that is shared especially with their closet U.S. ally, what especially helped to deal with the german submarines.
http://www.pbs.org/behindcloseddoors/in-depth/supplying-allies.html
Machiavelli
Active member
But i like China, we prefere to kill ourselves in silly world wars.
Machiavelli
Active member
True about Africa....the land was plundered by european empires and their civilzations were destroyed 1 by 1. Now warlords reign there.
America is talked to death and quite obvious, they took the land and killed the natives.
But Jews were bashed by everyone for some reasion.(dunno why) But Islam/arabic etc states surrounding Isreal hate jews and they had their wars, too. A jew is like a kid that gets mobbed in school, cause everyone does it without any real reasion other than its just a welcomed victim. Also back then Rome(white european people) massacred quite a lot of jews. You want to learn about the battle at the fortress Masada, its a very popular one. Seems jews got finally assimilated by the U.S. what i think, is the new rome in the modern age. First rome was too brutish evil for this, i guess.
Last edited:
1) I agree : no more need to be said,because it is only Ukrainian propaganda :the facts are :there was a famine(not unusual in the SU),which was not limited to the Ukraine,which was not manmade and which caused not 10 million dead.
2) About Lend-Lease :what you posted is rubbish,figures out of context :if you would look at the Soviet production, you would see that the Lend-Lease figures had a marginal importance,and that the Spam was totally neglectable .
The trucks: were not most important,in a country without roads
Most Lend-Lease to the SU arrived after 1942,when the Germans already were defeated .
3)US had supplies,manpower and intelligence.The SU had also supplies (they made more than 80000 tanks) and intelligence,Britain also had manpower,supplies and intelligence.
From our point of views, the JEWS belong the white race, they are no different with the people of Europe, at least many of them look like a European.
Probably many JEWS mix-bloods with the white people of Europe?
But I heard the JEWS belong Semites race, Semites are the common ancestry of the JEWS and Arabs.
Semites is an ancient race,lived on the Arabian Peninsula from a long times ago,
Semites had very long history, beginning about 3000 BC, one branch of a Semitic: Akkadian people migrated to northern Mesopotamia.
Probably many JEWS mix-bloods with the white people of Europe?
But I heard the JEWS belong Semites race, Semites are the common ancestry of the JEWS and Arabs.
Semites is an ancient race,lived on the Arabian Peninsula from a long times ago,
Semites had very long history, beginning about 3000 BC, one branch of a Semitic: Akkadian people migrated to northern Mesopotamia.
Last edited:
What you are talking about world war 2 already past 67 years.
The three world war(if it happens) won't be of conventional forces, that's mostly for show. Need to be concerned with are hydrogen bombs, ICBM's and medium range cruise missiles, like the Taliban fight with drones no conventional forces.
The three world war(if it happens) won't be of conventional forces, that's mostly for show. Need to be concerned with are hydrogen bombs, ICBM's and medium range cruise missiles, like the Taliban fight with drones no conventional forces.
About the number of LL trucks delivered to the SU,it was not 362000,but ,the following were delivered :
towing vehicles : 192000(most Studebakers and Dodge 3/4 which were no trucks)
trucks: 74000 (most Ford-6)
light vehicles : 40000 (most Willis)
special automobiles :5000
Total : 321000,most were delivered after 31 december 1943
towing vehicles : 192000(most Studebakers and Dodge 3/4 which were no trucks)
trucks: 74000 (most Ford-6)
light vehicles : 40000 (most Willis)
special automobiles :5000
Total : 321000,most were delivered after 31 december 1943
Machiavelli
Active member
Well, the irony of the jews is, they revolted against the roman empire 2.000 years ago and in the present time are pawns of u.s.a. So whatever they are white or not(i am not an eugentic scientist like the nazis) they act like white people and do everything what you would expect from them beeing white men. Also, Christianity was spreaded like a plague in europe and is of jewish origin, too. German ancient culture believed in different religions before charlemagne convienced them by the sword to serve the only true god.
And then that catastrophe in WWII with the holocaust on jews, made jewish people and white folk come together with a history full of tradition. And obviously as the german feel guilty for their war crimes on the jews they seek redemption and do whatever Israel wants now.
yeah i watched a documentation on TV about drones....what should i say....lets have rather peace.*lol*
Why the German massacred six-millions JEWS in world war 2? why the Jews did not resist the Nazi German?
why they are waiting to be slaughter like an animal? they should battle to dead. not to should be killed like a livestock.
In my opinions, the intellient of JEWS very high. They can be called the most smart race of the global. I am not compliment the JEWS. According a research, if said the intelligent on averge of the European and Asian is 100. Then IQ of the JEWS is on averge 115.
For example ,the great scientist of human history ,Einstein is a Jews, the scientists according his theory, invent the most powerful weapons in human history!---hydrogen bombs.
Sorry,reasonable to say, it should be JEWS massacre Germanic instead of Germanic killed them.
why they are waiting to be slaughter like an animal? they should battle to dead. not to should be killed like a livestock.
In my opinions, the intellient of JEWS very high. They can be called the most smart race of the global. I am not compliment the JEWS. According a research, if said the intelligent on averge of the European and Asian is 100. Then IQ of the JEWS is on averge 115.
For example ,the great scientist of human history ,Einstein is a Jews, the scientists according his theory, invent the most powerful weapons in human history!---hydrogen bombs.
Sorry,reasonable to say, it should be JEWS massacre Germanic instead of Germanic killed them.
Machiavelli
Active member
Einstein is the most hyped scientist ever.
And the jews commited mass suicide when the romian legion were about to storm their fortress Masada.
Very intelligent people. Better commit suicide. Slavery and torture on the cross or mines isn't as mercyful as a quick death.
Lets talk about ghengis khan who invaded china and killed 20 million people, or more. And this in his time era with much fewer world population as in the modern age.
And the jews commited mass suicide when the romian legion were about to storm their fortress Masada.
Very intelligent people. Better commit suicide. Slavery and torture on the cross or mines isn't as mercyful as a quick death.
Lets talk about ghengis khan who invaded china and killed 20 million people, or more. And this in his time era with much fewer world population as in the modern age.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Umm any chance we can discuss Ghengis Khan in the older history forum as I am not sure he crossed the Polish border in 1939 in a PzKpfw II.
We are heading a long way off topic here.
Machiavelli
Active member
Umm any chance we can discuss Ghengis Khan in the older history forum as I am not sure he crossed the Polish border in 1939 in a PzKpfw II.
We are heading a long way off topic here.
Completely ontopic cause it servers to a comparission whats really possible in Operation Barbarossa under different diplomatic and political conditions, the german military was cabable of defeating the red army very easily. Actually they did defeat the red army and almost completely annhilitated them, they recovered big time cause of other reasions than just economics and military success. Hitler used the holocaust and that made people join the red army and destroy Berlin. No more no less. You need to motivate your millions and millions of people to do your bidding and no one liked Stalin at the beginn of this operation and his red army was rather small and weak. Or else it wouldn't be defeaten twice in a row.
Ghengis Khan took for example the vast lands of russia along with many other countries with only, but his horsemen and the golden horde. He even controlled his vast borders with his horse scouts, that patrol from border to border and get in an small outpost new fresh horses, fresh water and something to eat.
People should learn more about politics and logistics, cause if we trust some here, then ghengis khan certainly wouldn't be able to capture and control such a big land....for such a long time. No world police there either, that was strong enough to stop him.
Maybe i missed something, but merchanised infantry, tanks, ships and airplanes should deal with a big country even more easily.
If it wouldn't for british and u.s. industry and city bombings, oil supply lines, trains, bridges etc and churchills commandos that caused major chaos in norway, yeah it wouldn't be so close.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Commandos#Norway
And some people think, its not possible for Nazi Germany to take on moscow and take half of russia and hold it, and finally take the rest in Siberia and so on. They blieve it wasn't close. How can one be so brainwashed by the victors propaganda? The actual economical numbers and possiblities must be studied in history by an university degree - so i trust rather the professors that studied it than listen to hearsay somewhere on the webs gloryfing the red army. Seemingly only know about history that at the point of stalingrad and onwards, completely ignoring the whole picture and history alltogether.
So to ulimately answer this thread:
Germany did lose solely, because of Hitler, he was no diplomat and made ridiculous crimes on the east front that got back to him in a domino effect way, completely laying waste to germany. If his army in on the eastfront would have approched the USSR as liberators, thinks could have truned out compeltely differently. But at that point it was clear he was going nuts on everything and just commited suicide to his reich.
He ulimatley lost the support of most of the people in the world and lost the war. Most tyrannts lose their empire in this way.
Maybe he had terrybad advisors too, he always complained about that, cause the racism wasn't his idea he expanded on it. And the holocaust was proably his idea but he didn't define how to deal with jews more precisely and it might got out of hand, on the other side, he did nothing to prevent it or take any action. And the holocaust was a secret campaign executed by SS staff, cause Hitler did know, the german citizens do not want such crimes. The eugenetics programm wasn't too popular Hitler was forced to stop it, when it got public.
Besides:
What would happen if hitler was replaced by Bismarck in WWII? He was a diplomat and a prussian using military for his goals. I think there wouldn't even be a WWII, but just a regional short war for dominance. WhilhelmII and Hitler destroyed everything he did achieve for the reich.
Imagine this: Bismarck vs. Churchill. That would be rather interesting, i doubt there would be a hummulating defeat for germany, but i also doubt Bismarck would risk a world war with different european cultures, anyways He would demonstrate military power and then go to the diplomacy table to force his conditions for peace. He cares about his empire in the long run. Heck the dude even attacked with the prussian army my country, Austria, just to force a diplomatic option, instead of occupying it. He wanted austria as ally(by force) and thought maybe the occupying force in austria would be too costly and could spent rather in war with the french. The guy was pure genius!
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
But I think you have over looked that WW2 was a ideological war without the racial hatred and crimes Hitler may never have come to power, without having the Jews and Communists as scapegoats he could never have unified Germany behind him.
Without convincing Germans of their "racial superiority" he could have never convinced them to march off in an attempt to conquer the East.
I think we can all agree that Germany would have been stronger had it not embarked on its racial policies and it could have recruited enough Russians and Ukrainians to defeat the Red Army had it not brutalised the populations it conquered however without those policies Hitler may never existed.
As for Bismarck I have always liked the man and been fascinated by him ever since learning about the Ems Despatch in early High School History had he been running Germany I doubt there would have even been a WWI let alone a WW2, Wilhelm II and successive governments after the Kaiser did little more than destroy everything Bismarck achieved and Hitler ensured that it was buried for good.
Of his quotes I think this was the most prophetic...
Europe today is a powder keg and the leaders are like men smoking in an arsenal ... A single spark will set off an explosion that will consume us all ... I cannot tell you when that explosion will occur, but I can tell you where ... Some damned foolish thing in the Balkans will set it off.
- Congress of Berlin in 1878
Without convincing Germans of their "racial superiority" he could have never convinced them to march off in an attempt to conquer the East.
I think we can all agree that Germany would have been stronger had it not embarked on its racial policies and it could have recruited enough Russians and Ukrainians to defeat the Red Army had it not brutalised the populations it conquered however without those policies Hitler may never existed.
As for Bismarck I have always liked the man and been fascinated by him ever since learning about the Ems Despatch in early High School History had he been running Germany I doubt there would have even been a WWI let alone a WW2, Wilhelm II and successive governments after the Kaiser did little more than destroy everything Bismarck achieved and Hitler ensured that it was buried for good.
Of his quotes I think this was the most prophetic...
Europe today is a powder keg and the leaders are like men smoking in an arsenal ... A single spark will set off an explosion that will consume us all ... I cannot tell you when that explosion will occur, but I can tell you where ... Some damned foolish thing in the Balkans will set it off.
- Congress of Berlin in 1878
Last edited:
The last post of Machiavelli is based on the usual myths of WWII one of them being : the post war claim by the generals that Adolf was responsible for the German defeat,and,that,if he was not medling,Germany would have won .
For the eastern front:
1) it was not so that on 22 june 1941 everyone was waiting on a liberation by the Germans
2)What the Einsatzgruppen were doing(aided by the Wehrmacht) had no influence on the determination of the Soviets to continue the fighting .
For the eastern front:
1) it was not so that on 22 june 1941 everyone was waiting on a liberation by the Germans
2)What the Einsatzgruppen were doing(aided by the Wehrmacht) had no influence on the determination of the Soviets to continue the fighting .
Machiavelli
Active member
Hey, you are very smart, i agree with all of that. But you are wrong, i did not overlook that fact. Hitler needed his propaganda with the jews to get more followers and unite germany. First he had only a few followers, after a speech it might got to 100, then 500, 1000, 5000, 20.000 you get the picture.
But his politic and views on other races than arier ones, did hurt in conquering foreign countries. Best example is this anti communistic "Kommisar" order, to kill sovjet commanders. Or all that plundering and scorched earth agendas. That wasn't in "Mein Kampf" other races should serve as support races for the germans race, there wasn't a holocaust mentioned anywhere.
he was too extreme and radical in the end and this killed him, he no longer got any support only by his closest followers and even them tried to get rid of him, Himmler and Göring for example, wanted to rule germany without him and got arrested by SS.
And for that operation barbarossa, it might be even possible for germany to win this, if Hitler did not stop Heinz Guderian, the panzergeneral, who had orders to directly attack moscow in the summer. He had a chance to attack moscow totally undefended during the summer, but was stopped by hitler to support another army in the south. Another british documentation i watched, pointed this out yesterday.
I need to study all the details but this sounds very plausible, cause i know heinz guderian is one of the best panzer generals, next to rommel. And he was stopped in dunkirk, too by a hitler order. Hitler tried to play this war save and this slowed the blitzkrieg tactic down so the russians had enough time to prepare for the invasion and the heavy rains in the autumn and the harsh winter finished the business.
Actually all that said barbarossa was planned to be finished by the end of sommer and this was possible even though russia is a vast and big country, without moscow and many other important sovjet cities, who knows what would happened next, but i am sure Stalin wouldn't have the forces he later had in operation Uranus and Kursk.The infantry was way too slow to keep up with the tanks. And as a rusher, i know how important it is, to attack asap before any defensive moves and installments it equals out to fight an early big battle without reinforcements.
And this is why it all was still close!
But after summer, losing the initiative it wasn't close to get through with Barbarossa. Barbarossa's success meaned germany will be the new superpower next to u.s. after that point, it had only possibilities to set up a successful defensive battles to wear the opponent armies out and sign an armistice.
Instead, the germany armies wer wasted in offensives: Stalingrad and Kursk.
So i see 3 big tactical mistakes here:
1. Hitler ordering Panzegeneral Heinz Guderian to support the southern army while he was close to moscow and about to take it, he protested, but was forced to turn around. The Germans lost the initiative right here and the chances for success of operation Barbarossa was very low now.
2. The battle of Stalingrad weared the Wehrmacht out, who could turn the tables without having the initiative, anyways? But with an army completely wasted for such little gains the wehrmacht was beaten for good, i find this insane tactical mistake disturbing, even for Hitler, he had his WWI Verdun right here and he always claimed to prevent another one in WWII.
3. The battle at Kursk - they allready lost it, but those new generation of tanks, especially tiger tanks that the german lost, could have helped elsewhere in chocke points to dispatch intruders, quickly.
But i would like a good reference link to point out facts, that this was just a myth that hitler did hold back his amibtious generals in dunkirk and moscow? Cause every historical source, mainly british, u.s. and german popular historicans, i know, so far tell otherwise.
Wonderful Bismarck quote, btw. Well, smart leaders exist even in germany, but they had no place in the 20th century.
Last edited:
It was out of the question that Guderian could have captured Moscow in august 1941.The "Kiew" decision was the only realistic one.
About Stalingrad : it is wrong to blame Hitler for the encirclment of the 6th Army .
About Kursk :the German tank losses at Citadelle were less than marginal .
About Dunkirk : the initial order ro stop,was given by von Rundstedt,not by Hitler
(source :K.H.Frieser :The Blitzkrieg legend P 295,and Hans Meier-Welcker in Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 1954,2).
About Stalingrad : it is wrong to blame Hitler for the encirclment of the 6th Army .
About Kursk :the German tank losses at Citadelle were less than marginal .
About Dunkirk : the initial order ro stop,was given by von Rundstedt,not by Hitler
(source :K.H.Frieser :The Blitzkrieg legend P 295,and Hans Meier-Welcker in Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 1954,2).
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Ok here goes...
1) Moscow was a huge risk with no guaranteed reward, without securing his southern flank a depleted Army Group Centre was going to be left in a huge salient throughout winter with Army Group North stuck at Leningrad and Army Group South to the west of Kiev.
In my opinion the Lotzen Decision was one of the few intelligent decisions Hitler made during the war.
2) Had Hitler withdrawn the 6th Army at the earliest possible time it would have made the withdrawal of Army Group A in the Caucuses almost impossible, as it was they only just escaped encirclement, essentially he had a choice lose an army or lose an army group he chose to sacrifice the 6th Army,
3) I disagree, after the setbacks of late 1942 early 1943 Germany had to regain the initiative and Kursk was the right place for that, the fact that spies were passing the plans for Citadel back to Moscow was something the Germans could not have planned for and the delays played into Stalin's hands.
However I am convinced the problem at Kursk was a lack of ambition.