Why did Germany lose WW2?

[A Can of Man]

It's a common mistake made by people who study a subject to death. They find out about some kind of stream in the land no one's heard about and they blow up its importance to the level of a large river.
Sometimes little details may swing things over one way but more often than not, they don't. If you don't believe me, read "The Hinge Factor" by Erik Durchschmeid (can't remember if that's how you spell the name) where cases are made that one small act turned battles. Some you feel may have a point but others are not so convincing.
Hitler was brilliant at a few things. He was a master orator, an artist of incredible talent. And obviously he knew a thing or two about running organizations. But military strategist isn't one of his talents.
He had the world's most powerful Army led by some excellent generals and managed to squander all of it.
As for the Generals. How many Generals who criticized Hitler's ideas survived do you think? If they just got fired and sent out into the civilian world they would have been most fortunate. Why the hell do you think Rommel attempted to take this maniac's life? Probably because he was a lot smarter than you are and realized that Hitler was going to bring Germany to ruin.

 

[Doppleganger]

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.

Woah, hold your horses here. This is a debate about Hitler's worth as a military planner and strategist. Save the moral and political arguments for a more appropriate time. So far you haven't provided anything new and all you have done is doled out tired old rhetoric. Once again, I am debating Hitler's worth as a military commander - let's keep it on topic shall we? I have no doubt that Hitler absolutely had to be stopped and I am utterly grateful for the older generation of my countrymen that did this. However, I have done enough reading to realize that Hitler was not responsible for many of the failures of German arms in WW2. Some of those must be laid out at the feet of the much lauded generals, Rommel included.

 

[A Can of Man]

I don't think Spike was going on about the morality of the whole thing.
I think he's also talking about Hitler's competence amongst other things.
Personally I think wasting all that fuel trying to burn Jews when the fuel could have been used to power his Army in itself was a pretty stupid decision.
Or how he called the halt order at Dunkirk because he was afraid his supply lines were stretched too thin... then he goes into Russia where his supply lines would make any supply problem caused by running straight for Dunkirk look like the bottom tip of an ant's left testicle.
Thinking that invading Russia was a smart idea was pretty stupid too.
Hitler was not a great military strategist.

You're sounding an awful lot like some sports fans who insist that a past player who was notorious for being a lousy player was in fact better than what people gave him credit for.

 

[Supostat]

Thinking that invading Russia was a smart idea was pretty stupid too.

However, Hitler hadn't lot of choice. Actually the political situation forced him to make this decision regarding USSR. If he turned his main force to West invading British islands, he most likely will receive attack in his back from East. He understood it and therefore decided to deal with USSR first and only then turn to West again.

So, the largest mistake of Hitler was starting war at all in the middle of the Europe... Finally it turned in war of almost Germany alone vs. all remaining world. With no chances to win.

 

[Doppleganger]

I think he's also talking about Hitler's competence amongst other things.
Personally I think wasting all that fuel trying to burn Jews when the fuel could have been used to power his Army in itself was a pretty stupid decision.

Well I don't want to get into the Jewish thing but I agree in many ways it was not helpful to the German war effort. In other ways it was.

Or how he called the halt order at Dunkirk because he was afraid his supply lines were stretched too thin... then he goes into Russia where his supply lines would make any supply problem caused by running straight for Dunkirk look like the bottom tip of an ant's left testicle.
Thinking that invading Russia was a smart idea was pretty stupid too.
Hitler was not a great military strategist.

Hitler called the halt at Dunkirk because a) he did not want to risk his panzers in a built-up area (he had bad memories of what had happened in Warsaw) and b) because Goering had assured him that the Luftwaffe could deal with the trapped British forces.

It's easy to say with hindsight that invading Russia was pretty stupid. I doubt whether you would have said that in August or September 1941. Moreover, the Germans had no major supply issues for the first 3 months. It was only when they decided to go for broke (instead of taking the more sensible option that Hitler initially supported and waiting for next spring) that things went wrong.

You're sounding an awful lot like some sports fans who insist that a past player who was notorious for being a lousy player was in fact better than what people gave him credit for.

Not at all, just trying to correct some myths.

 

[A Can of Man]

I'm not a big fan of monday morning quarterbacking either but any invasion of Russia is a pretty stupid idea especially if you must hold ground.
If you have to end up doing that, it's time to call off your little adventure.

 

[senojekips]

Woah, hold your horses here. This is a debate about Hitler's worth as a military planner and strategist.

Not exactly true, this debate if you read the title is about why Germany lost WWII, which of course includes such things as Hitler's culpability, and the part he played in it, so in fact my answers are pretty much still on topic.

Save the moral and political arguments for a more appropriate time. So far you haven't provided anything new and all you have done is doled out tired old rhetoric.

I don't know what planet you live on, but here on earth, the waging of war, and the suffering caused by it are both moral and political issues that are not able to be separated from this subject.
Of course I have not provided anything "new",... the war has been over for more than 60 years and the facts are well known and documented. "Rhetoric" is the use of verbal persuasion, which of course would be a complete waste of time where the subject has already been done to death and the answers are known and accepted by the majority of the worlds population. I don't have to "persuade" anyone.

Once again, I am debating Hitler's worth as a military commander - let's keep it on topic shall we?

As I have already said, this has been answered a thousand times by persons better placed than you or I, the general consensus being that he was the only person who thought he had any talent as a military strategist. His constant micro management was certainly a contributing factor to Germany's losing the war. I concede that he got some things right. I have absolutely no tactical military skills myself, but if put in the same position, no doubt even I'd get some things right. That in no way qualifies me as any sort of military whizz kid. The fact remains, he was little more than a self assured bumbler in this arena. His skills in other areas are admitted, but once again have no bearing on his ability as a military planner or strategist.

It is perhaps an unfortunate fact of human nature, that when a man with "big plans" who through hard work or just plain good luck, makes a fortune, he is hailed as a "genius", but should his plan fall on its face,... he is just another fool with big ideas. Not withstanding the fact that Hitler's scheming was of murderous intent and outcome, he definitely falls into category two,.. and I think, justifiably so

I have no doubt that Hitler absolutely had to be stopped and I am utterly grateful for the older generation of my countrymen that did this. However, I have done enough reading to realize that Hitler was not responsible for many of the failures of German arms in WW2. Some of those must be laid out at the feet of the much lauded generals, Rommel included.

You will get no argument from me on this point, no single person was was wholly responsible, or got every decision absolutely correct. The only reason why I at times focus on Hitler, is that his part was a major contributory factor in the whole thing. Put in the absolute simplest terms, had there have been no Hitler, there would never have been the WWII as we know it.

There are no "new" points to be made here, nor any significant new findings about the subject, so to me, it appears that all that is really happening in this thread is that some persons are attempting to microscopically dissect the points of historical fact and reassemble them in such a way as to reverse history. Believe me, It will just never happen.

 

[Doppleganger]

I'm not a big fan of monday morning quarterbacking either but any invasion of Russia is a pretty stupid idea especially if you must hold ground.

If you are dug-in, along a strong natural defensive feature for much of your front line, while your enemy must assault you in winter, why is this a stupid idea?

 

[Doppleganger]

As I have already said, this has been answered a thousand times by persons better placed than you or I, the general consensus being that he was the only person who thought he had any talent as a military strategist.

General consensus from whom, the public at large, the generals who chose to blame Hitler for anything and everything? Let's see a general consensus from people who have actually taken the time to read and study the Eastern Front and have no axe to grind.

His constant micro management was certainly a contributing factor to Germany's losing the war.

Only after December 1941, when Germany arguably had lost the chance to defeat Russia anyway.

The fact remains, he was little more than a self assured bumbler in this arena.

This is an opinion, not a fact. Some noted historians do not share your opinion of Hitler as a military strategist, David Glantz and Robert Forczyk amonst others.

Put in the absolute simplest terms, had there have been no Hitler, there would never have been the WWII as we know it.

What does this mean exactly? Without Hitler there was still Stalin to contend with. Without Hitler and a resurgent Germany, Stalin likely runs roughshod all over western and southern Europe. There would be no quick comeback from that scenario for Europe and I include Great Britain in that also.

There are no "new" points to be made here, nor any significant new findings about the subject, so to me, it appears that all that is really happening in this thread is that some persons are attempting to microscopically dissect the points of historical fact and reassemble them in such a way as to reverse history. Believe me, It will just never happen.

History is always evolving and so 'new' points can be made, especially when new information or data comes to light. An example of this is the opening up of the Soviet intelligence archives after the fall of communism that puts new light on battles and casualty figures from WW2. You cannot reverse history, but you can reinterpret it.

 

[Supostat]

If you are dug-in, along a strong natural defensive feature for much of your front line, while your enemy must assault you in winter, why is this a stupid idea?

Giving up initiative is a stupid idea, as well as giving enemy a time to rearm, mobilize and train new troops. Especially, if enemy has larger resources than You. In such situation time and any delay is working against You.

Without Hitler there was still Stalin to contend with. Without Hitler and a resurgent Germany, Stalin likely runs roughshod all over western and southern Europe.

Stalin was too clever to launch an open assault on West and thus make himself alone vs. all remaining world. For assault to West Stalin needed someone like Hitler, who lightened the war in the middle of Europe. Only then Stalin could launch his attack legally and, what is more important, even with some support at least initially. In this aspect yes, Hitler was stupid enough to sacrifice himself and Germany and give a chance to Stalin to capture eventually entire Eastern Europe and part of Germany.

 

[senojekips]

General consensus from whom, the public at large, the generals who chose to blame Hitler for anything and everything? Let's see a general consensus from people who have actually taken the time to read and study the Eastern Front and have no axe to grind.

General consensus is just that. Had I have meant his generals or any other group I would have said that.

Only after December 1941, when Germany arguably had lost the chance to defeat Russia anyway.

Once again you are trying to dissect the war into pieces that you can reassemble to suit your point of view, what counts is the overall cause and effect.

This is an opinion, not a fact. Some noted historians do not share your opinion of Hitler as a military strategist, David Glantz and Robert Forczyk amonst others.

That's a pretty miserable count against the remainder of world opinion. Where i come from world opinion counts for far more than the thoughts of a few "experts"

What does this mean exactly? Without Hitler there was still Stalin to contend with. Without Hitler and a resurgent Germany, Stalin likely runs roughshod all over western and southern Europe. There would be no quick comeback from that scenario for Europe and I include Great Britain in that also.

I think Supostat has answered that better than I would have bothered. You are just getting into the realm of "what if"?

History is always evolving and so 'new' points can be made, especially when new information or data comes to light. An example of this is the opening up of the Soviet intelligence archives after the fall of communism that puts new light on battles and casualty figures from WW2. You cannot reverse history, but you can reinterpret it.

I think that even you must agree that the information that has come to light since the war has done nothing to absolve Hitler from his part in the war or raise any possible mitigating circumstance, it has merely confirmed what we already suspected, and/or found for ourselves.
Casualty figures or signals regarding the number socks issued to the 13th Brandenburger Brigade may be interesting statistics to some, but have had no bearing on the causes or possible outcome of the war. They may have further implicated some people or units in their crimes but that's about all. In any case it's all too late to be bothering about it now.

 

[Doppleganger]

Giving up initiative is a stupid idea, as well as giving enemy a time to rearm, mobilize and train new troops. Especially, if enemy has larger resources than You. In such situation time and any delay is working against You.

Giving up the initiative before you reach your limit of 'strategic consumption' (knowing even that you will reach it) is not stupid, it is sensible. The enemy in question would not have enough time to reorganise as events historically demonstrated. Case Blau was initially an outstanding success partly because the Soviets did not have enough time to recover from 1941. Now imagine a German Army that had not suffered the losses of the Moscow counter-offensive and wholly better supplied and much better equipped and it could be a disaster that the Soviets could not recover from.

Stalin was too clever to launch an open assault on West and thus make himself alone vs. all remaining world. For assault to West Stalin needed someone like Hitler, who lightened the war in the middle of Europe. Only then Stalin could launch his attack legally and, what is more important, even with some support at least initially. In this aspect yes, Hitler was stupid enough to sacrifice himself and Germany and give a chance to Stalin to capture eventually entire Eastern Europe and part of Germany.

I honestly doubt Stalin cared about world opinion and the only thing stopping his westward/southward expansion was a strong Germany, as it was during the Cold War too. Hitler really had no choice but to attack the Soviet Union as Stalin was probably going to attack Germany with mid 1943 as the most likely time. War was inevitable and Hitler did the right thing by attacking first, before the Red Army could properly reorganize itself. It was in the process of reorganizing in 1941 when the Germans attacked.

 

[Doppleganger]

General consensus is just that. Had I have meant his generals or any other group I would have said that.

That's a pretty miserable count against the remainder of world opinion. Where i come from world opinion counts for far more than the thoughts of a few "experts"

I'll take the opinions of a few experts (and Glantz and Forczyk are just that) over the opinions of the general public who have only heard what they learned from hearsay and the limited history lessons at school. Just like I'll take the opinion of my GP when I have an illness over the 'advice' from people who have had no medical training.

I think that even you must agree that the information that has come to light since the war has done nothing to absolve Hitler from his part in the war or raise any possible mitigating circumstance, it has merely confirmed what we already suspected, and/or found for ourselves.

My original reason for replying to you was to point out the myth that Hitler was wholly responsible for the military blunders that beset Germany during WW2, and that he was a bumbling idiot. He was neither.

 

[senojekips]

I'll take the opinions of a few experts (and Glantz and Forczyk are just that) over the opinions of the general public who have only heard what they learned from hearsay and the limited history lessons at school. Just like I'll take the opinion of my GP when I have an illness over the 'advice' from people who have had no medical training.

There is a vast difference between a Doctor and some self styled author. Also the people who made these opinions were most often those who lived and fought through the experience, their collective opinion is what counts in this world not that of half a dozen "experts" trying to gain attention for themselves by flying in the face of history. It all comes down to the fact that, "you can fool some of the people some of the time....", eventually the population wakes up to the truth. Not that it took a lot of convincing in this case.

My original reason for replying to you was to point out the myth that Hitler was wholly responsible for the military blunders that beset Germany during WW2, and that he was a bumbling idiot. He was neither.

I'm afraid that history has found your judgement sadly lacking. This is only a myth among the small number of apologists. He may not have been a "bumbling idiot" in all things, but he was certainly a less than talented military strategist and human being in fact i think I could safely say without much fear of contradiction that, "his faults far out weighed his strengths". But then again you may have a different view of what constitutes a fool to the vast majority of the civilised world and that is your prerogative.

 

[A Can of Man]

Doppleganger, basically you're saying let's assume no part of the German plan went wrong and every part of the Russian plan went wrong.

"Now imagine a German Army that had not suffered the losses of the Moscow counter-offensive and wholly better supplied and much better equipped and it could be a disaster that the Soviets could not recover from."

More wishful thinking don't you think? If it wasn't Moscow, it very well could have been somewhere else. Then there was Stalingrad as well. With the supply lines they had it was practically impossible that they not have the supply problems they had.

As for Stalin concerned about world opinion, he'd be concerned about it in regards of whether or not he'd be up against a force too great for him to stop. Stalin for all his trechery was a far more practical thinker than Hitler ever was. Like Supostat said, I don't think he would have wanted a scenario where Russia would have to fight the whole world.

 

[Doppleganger]

There is a vast difference between a Doctor and some self styled author. Also the people who made these opinions were most often those who lived and fought through the experience, their collective opinion is what counts in this world not that of half a dozen "experts" trying to gain attention for themselves by flying in the face of history. It all comes down to the fact that, "you can fool some of the people some of the time....", eventually the population wakes up to the truth. Not that it took a lot of convincing in this case.

Give me a break Senojekips, no really, give me a break. It is almost pointless debating with you if all you are going to do is come up with meaningless twaddle.

I'm afraid that history has found your judgement sadly lacking. This is only a myth among the small number of apologists. He may not have been a "bumbling idiot" in all things, but he was certainly a less than talented military strategist and human being in fact i think I could safely say without much fear of contradiction that, "his faults far out weighed his strengths". But then again you may have a different view of what constitutes a fool to the vast majority of the civilised world and that is your prerogative.

Let me succinctly sum up my position for you. IMO, and in the opinion of some noted historians, Hitler was not as useless a military strategist as is publicly perceived. You can (and will no doubt) believe what you like.

There you go. Have a nice day.

 

[Doppleganger]

Doppleganger, basically you're saying let's assume no part of the German plan went wrong and every part of the Russian plan went wrong.

"Now imagine a German Army that had not suffered the losses of the Moscow counter-offensive and wholly better supplied and much better equipped and it could be a disaster that the Soviets could not recover from."

More wishful thinking don't you think? If it wasn't Moscow, it very well could have been somewhere else. Then there was Stalingrad as well. With the supply lines they had it was practically impossible that they not have the supply problems they had.

As for Stalin concerned about world opinion, he'd be concerned about it in regards of whether or not he'd be up against a force too great for him to stop. Stalin for all his trechery was a far more practical thinker than Hitler ever was. Like Supostat said, I don't think he would have wanted a scenario where Russia would have to fight the whole world.

With all due respect, you do not have sufficient knowledge to debate this subject in a worthwhile manner.

Adios.

 

[senojekips]

Give me a break Senojekips, no really, give me a break. It is almost pointless debating with you if all you are going to do is come up with meaningless twaddle.

Let me succinctly sum up my position for you. IMO, and in the opinion of some noted historians, Hitler was not as useless a military strategist as is publicly perceived. You can (and will no doubt) believe what you like.

There you go. Have a nice day.

And why do you think that impression persists? Like I said, "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. The fact is that your "poor misunderstood hero" has been seen for what he is, and he has been seen that way for 60 years. History got it right, you got it wrong believe it or not.

I will most certainly do that, quite safe in the knowledge that i am supported by 99.999% of world opinion.

 

[senojekips]

With all due respect, you do not have sufficient knowledge to debate this subject in a worthwhile manner.

Adios.

Arrogance is no more than the cheapest combination of vanity and ignorance.

 

[A Can of Man]

Here we have a guy who's never frozen his ass off at the bottom of a valley with no resupply... who has no idea what it's like to march in formation at night so dark that you can't see the guy barely sixty centimeters in front of you, has no idea of the actual amount of logistical support that goes into setting off on an op, has no idea how how much of a toll just simply marching from one objective to another takes... telling us what is militarily viable and what is not.
I don't understand what part of my argument doesn't make sense.
Every war is different, every war is the same. They all have something in common.
Even in a place as small as Korea you will have supply problems when winter sets in or when you get torrential rainfall. In a place as big as Russia... don't even get me started.
Things may look nice and neat on your copy of The Operational Art of War but where the rubber meets the road, it is a nightmare.