Why did Germany lose WW2?

[MontyB]

Without reading the entire 100 pages of this thread, I think the biggest problem Germany had was when they tried to take Russia. They would have faired much much better had they stayed away from taking on Russia. That along with more smaller & faster cruisers & destroyers and more submarines, they would have won.

The problem with that is that in every sense Germany just like Napoleons France was a continental army on mainland Europe it was formidable but once it ran out of Europe to conquer it was done as both the Royal Navy and US Navy controlled the waves, Germany barely had the naval resources to conquer Norway and in the process of doing so it left most of its navy at the bottom of Norwegian fjords.

 

[Flfiremedic]

I agree about not reading the first 100 pages, so this ma be repeat. Germany should have pushed forward on Great Britain and taken it. They should have let Russia alone until they had developed an atomic bomb, or at least until better prepared, and should have reigned in Japan...had them stop short of the Philippines and not attack the USA.

 

[udaka]

Which power more stronger in world war 2, German or Japanese army?



My point :

compare the nvay . Japan win the German army completely, Becase Japanese built many aircraft carriers during world war 2. The Japs can manufacture millions of tons ships per years. But American navy was the top 1 in ww2,The ship-building ability are three times than Japan.


the airfoce: It is hard to compare ,zero fighter or BF109, you can't tell which was more excellent?



landforce: German overwhelm the Japanese no doubtly! Germanic had tiger tanks and a very strong armor vehicle and aritillery.many Germanic soldiers equipment submachine guns, but the Japs had not.the total troops of German reach 9 millions peaktime.The Japs are 7 millions in peaktimes.
Weapons and equipment, the German army more mechanized than Japanese, but and more advanced.

 

[BritinBritain]

Which power more stronger in world war 2, German or Japanese army?



My point :



the airfoce: It is hard to compare ,zero fighter or BF109, you can't tell which was more excellent?

The ZERO may have been more manoeuvrable but the fuel tanks were not self sealing and carried no armour protection for the pilot, it didn't take much to get a flamer out of a ZERO. In my opinion the BF 109 was the better aeroplane, of course depending on the model.

Many western pilots regarded the ZERO as a death trap.

 

[udaka]

every weapon pocess a weakpoint. no matter the tiger tank or the zore fighter. the weakpoint of zero fighter it thin armor. But you forgot the zero dominate the sky of Pacific and shoot down all fighters of ally ,before the american got a complete zero fighter in June 1942.
The american anatomy and research this zero fighter. find the weakpoint.and developed the new war plane cope with it.
The superiority of zero.
1A very low wing loading, Zero war plane eexcellent rotation capability.
2 the zero can travel far voyage than other fighter the same period
3 favorable climb.performance
4 powerful 20 mm gun,
weak point
Material of zero contains a lot of magnesium, easy got fire.
No fire fighting apparatus on plane and thin armor.

The ZERO may have been more manoeuvrable but the fuel tanks were not self sealing and carried no armour protection for the pilot, it didn't take much to get a flamer out of a ZERO. In my opinion the BF 109 was the better aeroplane, of course depending on the model.

Many western pilots regarded the ZERO as a death trap.

 

[udaka]

continue contrast the Germanic and Japan in ww2.


1 chemical weapons, Japs made numerous chemical weapons and use in China battlefield. But I can't find a record of Germanic chemistry weapons in ww2.


According to the latest data, show the peroid during the Japanese invasion of China, had produced 7,460,000 gas bombs, expect nerve gas, almost equipment and developed all kinkd of gas in the world. Such as mustard gas, lewisite gas, phosgene, diphenyl cyanide arsenic, hydrogen cyanide arsenic, diphenylethanone, Chloroacetophenone and three cyanide, arsenic and other toxic gases.

Japanese poison gas weapons variety, except a variety of gas bombs, artillery shells, there were gas cylinder, poison eqiopment, poison car, gas cylinders, etc.




2 Biological weapons. Japs set up a special biological warfare forces and agencies,the notorous 731 troops. they use civilian of Chinese and korean,even the war prisoners of Svoiet and west countries test the biological virus.
For Germanic ,I can't find any documents of Germanic about biological weapons.

 

[udaka]

We often find any documents from the meidas and internet. west countries and Soviet government already made many plans about nuclear war.they will use nukes attack eachother if the war outbreak!
As a Chinese ,I am thinking a problem. The west and Soviet all belong white race! What's wrong with these white in mental? Why these west and Soviet seem to very hate each other, this degree of hatred enough made they use hydrogen bombs extinct opposite race?
Or the west countries and Soviet just play a show 'just like a bad cop,a good cop'? tell the Asisan,African and American Indian.
:' look, how brave our white people(European), we even didn't fear the nuclear war. Our white are the only brave men on the Earth. Other Asian and African just cowards. so, don't try to annoy us.' or we nuke you low and up.


Really？ these white(European) are very bravery? they even don't fear die at the hydrogen bombs?
Die at hydrogen bombs, the painful is unimaginable, you body ,you legs and eyes will be steaming in tens of millions of degrees temperature! Horrible!
The Chinese and Japanese belong Asian, As Chinese,we hate Japanese becuase Japanese ever massacre many Chinese.
But we never had a idea use hydorgen bombs wipe out the race of Japanese.

Because we believe use hydrogen bmombs will lead human go to extinction. Believe me,perhaps you and your families can escape from the first nuclear attack of global,
but never expect you can survive in the second round nuclear strike.

 

[udaka]

 

[Arizona Patriot]

This is a great thread.

The obvious answer is that Germany lost WWII because it went to war with a combination of other Great Powers that were vastly stronger than Germany and its Axis partners. There is good economic data available for the major combatants on Wikipedia (citing Harrison, Mark, "The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison", Cambridge University Press (1998)).

Using the years 1941-1943 as the comparison period:

1. The overall GDP of the Axis (Germany-Austria-Italy-Japan) was only 41% of the overall GDP of the Allies (Britain-US-USSR).
2. The overall GDP of the European Axis (Germany-Austria-Italy) was 88% of the overall GDP of the European Allies (Britain-USSR).

Put another way: the addition of Japan to the Axis increased Axis resources by about 33%; while the addition of the US to the Allies increased Allied resources by about 287%.

Or put yet another way: the combined GDP of the Axis was about 63% of the GDP of the US alone.

This data shows that Germany's biggest single error was needlessly declaring war on the US. If Hitler had denounced the Pearl Harbor attack and declared that he wanted peace with the US, it is difficult to see how Roosevelt could have prosecuted a war against Germany and Italy at all, much less adopted the "Germany First" strategy. Also, it is difficult to see how Lend-Lease could have been continued at any significant level, if the US had been at war solely with Japan.

Without US involvement, there would have been no Torch in 1942; probably no British victory at Alamein in 1942; no knocking Italy out of the war in 1943; and no Normandy invasion in 1944 (or ever). Germany could probably have fought the Soviets to a stalemate on the Eastern Front. British action would have remained at the nuisance level for Germany.

Germany's second major error was overextension, especially on the Eastern Front, culminating in the disaster of Stalingrad. But even with this error, I suspect that German resources would have been sufficient to ultimately stabilize the front, without the drain of US attacks on what were really three fronts: the Western Front in France; the Southern Front in Italy; and the Air Front over the skies of Germany itself.

This is not meant to denigrate the contribution of the British Empire or the Soviet Union to victory over Nazi Germany. The Soviets suffered the worst losses (by far), and inflicted the most damage on Germany (by far). The British contribution was significant and heroic. But I don't think that Hitler could have avoided war with Britain and the USSR. From everything that I've studied about Hitler, the conquest of Poland and the western USSR was his obsession and his principal goal. That goal made his war with Britain and the USSR inevitable. My proposition is that Hitler's Germany probably could have won WWII by avoiding his fight with the US.

 

[lljadw]

Wars are not won by GDP.

 

[udaka]

Well, if American army or Japanese army attack Israeli,As the first wave of attack, the American or Japanese just need to bomb the airport,and seal the harbor of Israeli. War is over.

Reason: The Jews found them can't run away. Then they took out the American flags or Japanese flags under their bed.:angel:

 

[JOC]

Why Nazi Germany fell.

I don’t think any single reason can be attributed to defeat of Hitler’s Germany. If their Jets had been unleashed as originally planned in 1943 as fighters they would have retaken the skies over Germany and the USSR at a point when they had enough high octane fuel to keep 1000’s of them in the air, this alone could have turned the tide. Remember despite the hammering the Reich underwent, weapons production increased thru 1944. With them in control of the air they ability to produce still would not have matched that of the allies but they tended to make better weapons. Every Soviet and allied soldier feared the Tiger and Panther tanks, the buzz saw machine gun, the 88 gun, etc. The Germans trouble was they couldn’t field enough of these high caliber weapons. Germany was simple overwhelmed by man and machine and could not afford the constant attrition the way the red army in particular and the allies could. I.e.: it often took an average of 4 T34’s to take out a tiger and 5 Sherman’s on average. Poor odds yet both the Allied and Soviet armies could easily make up for these kinds of losses. In the end it was the industrial might of the USA and the USSR along with their unending supply of reserves and reinforcements that simple wore out and ground Germany into the dirt. As for picking a battle likely Kurst was a close call for the USSR but they did win the battle and from then on the German army in the USSR moved steadily west. Not without inflicting appalling causalities on the Red army and the USSR peoples. The death blow was 2 fold and occurred simultaneously as the allies ended the Normandy fighting at the Falaise Pocket where the cream of Hitler’s western army was destroyed and in the east in Operation Bagration which destroyed Army group central.
Note: certainly Hitler’s no retreat policies "he really took the helm militarily in 1943", helped to buildup the German casualties as well. A mobile defense using the often brilliant German field marshals and generals would have slowed things down a bit.

 

[JOC]

Germany vs the Red army

Many here give too much credit to the Red army to soon in my opinion. The USSR was not out of the woods until after the Germans Bungled the Kurst offensive. Just before Kurst the Red army proved to still be venerable with it’s major defeat at Kharkov and Belgorod. It wasn’t until after Kurst that the Red army had the measure of the Wehrmacht. And one of the major reasons for this was the fact that > 80 % of the on the eastern front were stripped to fight the allied air armadas. Troops were pulled to face the allies in Italy. This left them outnumbers >> 2 to 1 in men and armor, artery and vulnerable to ground attack aircraft. Although they were outnumbered from the start in the USSR. The quality of the troops improved considerable by 43, as did their mobility with the US supplied 6 wheelers, jeeps and radios.
Another reason was if Germany went in and treated the citizen of the USSR ½ descent they wouldn’t have galvanized the Soviet people to fight to the death. The Soviet people had no choice, they faced extermination at the hands racist Nazis where 15 to possible > 19 million civilians died and a minimum of 3.5 million Soviet POW’s died in often horrific circumstances.
The giant contribution of the USSR in WW2 cannot be denied. They tied up 2/3 of the Wehrmacht and took a terrible toll on the German forces > 4 million dead and POW.:tank:

 

[MontyB]

I find that answer a little naive, Nazi ideology had its philosophy firmly rooted in racial superiority therefore to argue that things may have been different had they treated the people they had just spent the last 10 years vilifying as inferior and undeserving of life makes no sense at all.

You are right in the respect that they could have sold themselves as liberators of the Russian people and it may have helped but given the ideology of the Third Reich it is an unlikely scenario at best.

I think the reality is that Russia was just too much for Germany to handle.

 

[Rowan]

WONDERFUL COMMENTS ALL! But you all miss the simple answer. They lost because they were allied with Italy! LOL

 

[JOC]

Italy and USSR continued

Initially the Germans were welcomed as liberators in many part of the USSR (Caucuses, Ukraine, and Baltic States) and for a very short period they were allowed to believe this, so as to point the communist party members and Jews. They rapidly made the people forget about Stalin’s crimes as they unveiled their policies. The goal was to eliminate 30 to 50 million Slavs for living room. The remainder would be used as a slave race or exiled east of the Urals. Hitler made it clear in Mein Kampt his plans for the east.
The Red army sense of patriotism was spawned by a strong sense of revenge. Even so the situation in the east was complex. Hundreds of thousands of Cossacks sided with Germany and saw them as the lesser of the 2 evils as did the Chechens. These groups paid dearly at wars end.
The Italians never really bolstered Mussolini’s dreams for the Mediterranean empire. In fact they fought better as partisans against the Germans and Mussolini puppet government.

 

[JOC]

I agree but still think it took the Allies and the USSR

I find that answer a little naive, Nazi ideology had its philosophy firmly rooted in racial superiority therefore to argue that things may have been different had they treated the people they had just spent the last 10 years vilifying as inferior and undeserving of life makes no sense at all.

You are right in the respect that they could have sold themselves as liberators of the Russian people and it may have helped but given the ideology of the Third Reich it is an unlikely scenario at best.

I think the reality is that Russia was just too much for Germany to handle.

I still think Russia likely would likely not have won a standalone war with Germany. Remember Soviet war production finally rivaled that of Germany in 43 and the Germans were usually better at doing more with less. The German army was highly motivated by the fact the USSR would gladly return the favor when if they reached German soil.

 

[lljadw]

NO:

1) No war with the West means no war with the East .

2) If the War against the West was won,the Ostheer would not be stronger,in june 1941,Germany attacked the SU with a hotch-potch of 152 divisions,while it still was fighting against Britain . If Britain had been defeated,additional divisions would be needed to occupy Britain,resulting in a weaker Ostheer .

3) If Germany had also defeated the SU,the result would be BEFORE 1953,the implosion of the Third Reich,because Germany was to weak to occupy Europe from the Urals to the Pyrenees .

 

[JOC]

Stalin did a good job

NO:

1) No war with the West means no war with the East .

2) If the War against the West was won,the Ostheer would not be stronger,in june 1941,Germany attacked the SU with a hotch-potch of 152 divisions,while it still was fighting against Britain . If Britain had been defeated,additional divisions would be needed to occupy Britain,resulting in a weaker Ostheer .

3) If Germany had also defeated the SU,the result would be BEFORE 1953,the implosion of the Third Reich,because Germany was to weak to occupy Europe from the Urals to the Pyrenees .

Stalin did a good job of occupying Poland, East Germany, Hungry, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, the Baltic states, parts of Finland, Strong influence on N Korea, etc. until his death in 1953, why not Hitler?

 

[JOC]

Caucuses

Hello Monty.

I feel you are not properly taking into consideration what the fall of Moscow would mean to the ability of STAVKA to direct large scale operations or what the impact would be on the civilian population.



The only way your suggestion would have worked was if Barbarossa had been planned as a 2 season campaign. Sure they would have secured Kiev and the Donets basin but there is simply not enough time for the Germans to reach the Baku oilfields and secure them before the onset of winter and the expected Soviet winter counter-offensive. Take a look at a map and see how far it is from the initial Russo-German border to the Caucasus area - it's a bloody long way even just to drive, never mind having to fight your way through hostile armies operating a scorched earth policy.

So, if it's a 2 season campaign then it's a viable strategy. If not then it's mission impossible and folly. The German armies would be even more extended than they were historically (assuming they got that far) and the resultant losses would probably be even more decisive than they were historically.

The problem wasn't so much the advance in the Caucuses (although the Soviets held up the Germans at some important mountain passes). It was after the defeat at Stalingrad the neck for which these troops were connected to the rest of the German army became dangerously narrow. The German maintained a tentative hold on Rostov. It forced the armies in the Caucasus to retreat in a hurry through this neck to prevent a 2nd Stalingrad. The Germans performed brilliantly here and saved > 300,000 men from certain defeat as they joined Army Group South. The original plan was to hold the Dons Basin to provide a buffer for the Caucasus invasion. However it became a 2 fold offensive which included the taking of Stalingrad and that were they failed.