Why did Germany lose WW2?

[Doppleganger]

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.

Hello.

It was not my intention to appear rude and I do respect your own operational experience. BTW, I'm not sure how you can be so sure that I haven't done the things you mention above. However, you are generalizing in a big way which makes having a proper discussion all but impossible. The Eastern Front is a huge subject and the vast majority of people know very little about it. The stuff they do know about is so covered in outdated data and misinformation as to make it useless. For example, that Stalingrad was the turning point of the war in the East - it wasn't. To have a useful discussion about this subject requires a certain level of knowledge that frankly most people do not have.

 

[A Can of Man]

I'm pretty sure that either you haven't done it, or if you have, you've certainly not done enough of it to remember any of it.
Either way, you sure as heck sound like someone who's never done it.
The nitty gritty details don't always matter so much. Like I said, the vast distances, the poor roads, the poor weather... it's a nightmare. And we're not even considering the Western Front which was going to open up as a matter of when not if.
If the Germans chose to take another course of action, the Russians wouldn't have stood by and let it happen that way as they merrily continued to do what they would have done "historically."
It's like the "Could we have won in Vietnam" debates. No probably not.
Could we have kicked the Chinese out of Korea. No probably not.
Could Hitler have won World War II? He didn't have a chance in hell.

 

[Doppleganger]

I'm pretty sure that either you haven't done it, or if you have, you've certainly not done enough of it to remember any of it.
Either way, you sure as heck sound like someone who's never done it.
The nitty gritty details don't always matter so much. Like I said, the vast distances, the poor roads, the poor weather... it's a nightmare. And we're not even considering the Western Front which was going to open up as a matter of when not if.
If the Germans chose to take another course of action, the Russians wouldn't have stood by and let it happen that way as they merrily continued to do what they would have done "historically."
It's like the "Could we have won in Vietnam" debates. No probably not.
Could we have kicked the Chinese out of Korea. No probably not.
Could Hitler have won World War II? He didn't have a chance in hell.

I'm not sure how you can ascertain the level of my military experience from what I've posted on an anonymous forum. But it really doesn't matter anyway and it's not relevant to the discussion at hand, unless I've had experience of planning the operational strategy for 4 million plus soldiers. I'm pretty sure no-one on this forum has anything like that level of experience so it's really a moot point.

As I've said before it is pointless debating this with you as you do not know the subject of the Eastern Front in WW2 well enough to be able to respond in a suitable manner. All you are doing is coming out with cliche after cliche. If you are prepared to dispute the points I'm trying to make then we can continue. But you won't, because you lack the knowledge of the subject matter to do so. All you do is spout generalizations and cliches. You do not realize how perilously close Hitler was to knocking the Russians out of the war in 1941. I wouldn't even worry about the Western Front because the war in Europe was won on the Eastern Front. Defeat for Germany was already a foregone conclusion by the time D-Day took place.

The last thing I'll say on the matter is this. The Germans were caught in 2 minds in July 1941. They either had to choose option a) or option b). Instead they tried to do both options at once and that is why the war for Germany was lost, not at Stalingrad or Kursk, but in 1941. But the war was definitely winnable for Hitler. That's why it was so frightening.

 

[Supostat]

But the war was definitely winnable for Hitler.

Only if Germany did the same total mobilization as USSR did, and already in 1941. But Germans wouldn't appreciate that.

 

[senojekips]

You are quite correct Supostat. The trouble with this whole debate is that it has been hijacked by dreamers, from "Why DID Germany lose WW II" to "They could have won IF". People are completely bypassing the facts to dream about "IF". Adolf could have crapped cinder blocks "IF" he had the right shaped fundamental orifice, but he didn't.

At the end of the day the blame lies with the man at the top. "Sh!t runs downhill, but responsibility goes t'other way" Yeah,... I know Doppleganger, it's another cliche, but it is never the less true.

 

[A Can of Man]

Doppleganger, then let it be known where you served and when like the rest of us.

 

[MontyB]

Doppleganger, then let it be known where you served and when like the rest of us.

Why is that of importance when discussing WW2 scenarios?

I seriously doubt it is possible to draw too many comparisons between modern experience and the operational environment of the Eastern front as I don't believe that magnitude of combat or ferocity will ever bee seen again.

 

[senojekips]

Why is that of importance when discussing WW2 scenarios?

I seriously doubt it is possible to draw too many comparisons between modern experience and the operational environment of the Eastern front as I don't believe that magnitude of combat or ferocity will ever bee seen again.

I suspect that Redneck is trying to ascertain Doppelganger's practical experience. It is well known among service personel that what actually happens on the ground and what gets written into books is usually vastly different. This is most noticeable in "historical" accounts and less so in biographical works.

It's the old comparison between the practical and the theoretical, and although it is not a complete gauge of knowledge, it certainly can have a great bearing on one's acceptance of information.

 

[Doppleganger]

Why is that of importance when discussing WW2 scenarios?

I seriously doubt it is possible to draw too many comparisons between modern experience and the operational environment of the Eastern front as I don't believe that magnitude of combat or ferocity will ever bee seen again.

Exactly. I doubt there is anyone on this board who has served at General Staff level or equivalent even in the modern day, never mind in WW2. Therefore, any experience at the tactical level is not really relevant or applicable to a discussion about grand strategy.

@ Supostat. Your viewpoint regarding mobilization is a little too simplistic. Again it wasn't a lack of resources that was the problem, it was lack of an adequate logistical infrastructure.

 

[MontyB]

I suspect that Redneck is trying to ascertain Doppelganger's practical experience. It is well known among service personel that what actually happens on the ground and what gets written into books is usually vastly different. This is most noticeable in "historical" accounts and less so in biographical works.

It's the old comparison between the practical and the theoretical, and although it is not a complete gauge of knowledge, it certainly can have a great bearing on one's acceptance of information.

I have a fair understanding of what Redneck is trying to achieve however in this case we are discussing simplistic hypotheticals as in reality Germany lost WW2 for literally thousands of reasons stretching all the way back to Varus and his legions and I sincerely doubt that modern squad level experience really covers much more than a few of those reasons.

 

[senojekips]

Warfare in the period that we are discussing and the intervening period has not changed all that much for the warrior, and the happenings before Hitler's rise to power are of very minor significance when discussing the ultimate outcome of the war. These arguments can become very "thin at the edges" and it is only the "meat" of the argument that really has any bearing on the outcome.

 

[MontyB]

Ok so can you tell me whether there has been anything in the last 30 years that comes close to the level of ferocity of the Eastern front 1941-45 or even the shear magnitude and scale of the battles.

I think there is a certain argument in comparing operations on the Western front and Italy to modern equivalents but the war in the west was vastly different to the war in the east.

 

[senojekips]

Any man being shot at or in immediate danger of imminent death on the battlefield feels that "his" war or "this" battle is the most ferocious, however this has nothing to do with my point.

My reference to the "meat" of the argument is aimed at the two different views being expressed here about "Why did Germany lose WW 2" One group seems focused on the major contributing factors and current world perceptions which have been known and changed little in 60 years. The other view is nibbling around the very thin edges using a "what if" argument, and a myriad of minute dissections. As I have pointed out, it is all rather moot when root causes have been known and understood for over half a century.

When a person is found to have been killed by lightning strike, no one is worried that he had a really bad pimple on his butt, or that he didn't get on with his mother in law, regardless of what some "expert" has written about it.

 

[Supostat]

@ Supostat. Your viewpoint regarding mobilization is a little too simplistic. Again it wasn't a lack of resources that was the problem, it was lack of an adequate logistical infrastructure.

No. Total mobilization regards also logistics. More vehicles, horses, more spare parts and human power, working with logistics and repair of vehicles damaged.

I think there is a certain argument in comparing operations on the Western front and Italy to modern equivalents but the war in the west was vastly different to the war in the east.

In which way different?

 

[Doppleganger]

No. Total mobilization regards also logistics. More vehicles, horses, more spare parts and human power, working with logistics and repair of vehicles damaged.

Of course total mobilization would help logistics but it wasn't essential. Don't get me wrong, Germany should have been on a total war footing well before Barbarossa but even so, they still had 2 chances in 1941 to ultimately defeat the Soviet Union.

 

[Easy-8]

Germany lost the war due to deficiency in logistics and manpower and Hitler's hard on for mirco-mangement. Lets look at a few fun facts.

1. The early political stages and arming the Wehrmacht were conducting reasonably well. Austria and Czechoslovakia were taken without a fight. Poland fought back hard but with no success and the USSR took over Eastern Poland. However the Third Reich failed to began full war production and total mobilization after both France and Britian declared war on them.

2. Ending the war in France in 6 weeks was stunning victory made possible by Heinz Guderian, Erich von Manstein and the soldiers of the Wehrmacht, however it is not without its flaws. Rundstedt and Hitler ignored Guderian when he wanted a trust to destroy the BEF at Dunkirk. The 300,000 man strong BEF was sitting there running back to the UK in pure panic and this juicy golden target was let go. If they had captured the BEF it would have been a massive blow to the British war effort 300,000 captured would have depleted British manpower reserves and moral. The UK would probably have sued for peace if the BEF had been lost. Thus resulting in a total victory for Germany in the West.

3. During the Battle of Britian Hitler ordered The Luftwaffe to stop targetting RAF airfields and industrial plants to attacking British cities. This only strengthened the British resolve to fight and win. The British Empire was the largest oversea empire ever created. However it was dying and not that strong. If Germany had just kept pounding Britian with air raid after air raid the RAF would slowly but surely give way and Operation Sealion could begin, I think the British ground forces could have put a huge dint in the invasion force but I don't think they could have defeated the Wehrmacht.

4. Trusting Italy to secure Africa and the Balkans was a mistake as well. The Italians had launched a invasion of Southern France during the 6 week battle there and did very poorly. This was a campiagn that the German High Command and most people today seem to pay no attention to. The resources wasted (Afrika Korps, Balkans campiagn) to undo Italian failures were great in number. The campiagn in Africa could have been avoided completely and the Balkan campiagn could have been over much sooner. Germany would have been better off not allying itself with Mussolini's Italy and going it alone or sending in German advisors to build the Italian military.

5. Operation Barbarossa was launched before Britian was taken care of thus beginning a two front war. The Wehrmacht won victory after victory on the stepp destroying whole Soviet Fronts with minimal losses Kiev alone yielded well over 600,000 Soviets killed or captured. However Barbarossa displayed Blitzkriegs main and pretty much only flaw. IF IT FAILS THERE IS ALMOST NEVER A PLAN B. And thus Germany found itself in a long war that it was not prepared for. Hitler also sent troops away from Heeresgruppe Mitte To Ukraine and Leningrad (Leningrad could have been in German hands but Hitler ordered the Wehrmacht NOT to enter the city). The Germans had not been issued winter clothing before the infamous general winter came into play. Germany as was stated earlier was not ready for a long war.

6. Germany then delcared war on the United States. This was a massive mistake on Hitler's part. Germany was not required under the Tripartite Pact to do this and tossed its free ride to avoiding war with US down the trash. Germany could have gotten Japan to attack the Soviet forces in Eastern Siberia thus forcing Stalin and RKKA to leave Moscow pretty much defenseless. Germany and Japan pretty much did their own thing through out much of the war they pretty much weren't allies at all.

7. A year later with the offensive on Stalingrad in full swing Hitler sent the Wehrmacht after two objectives the industrial powerhouse of Stalingrad and the oil fields of Caucasus. The whole offensive lost its power when it went after the two targets when it only had enough power to achieve a single objective. When Georgi Zhukov Operation Uranus Hitler foolishly ordered Paulus to hold Stalingrad the 6th Army had a chance to escape but Hitler turned it down and 300,000 troops of the 6th Army were lost as a result. Those 300,000 men could have come in handy in the operations on the Eastern Front yet to come...

8. Kursk was anoher blunder on Germany's part. victory after Stalingrad was not possible but if the Wehrmacht had went on the defensive and stayed there Germany might have achieved a stand still. refusing Manstein's plan to pimp slap the Red Army after the victory at Kharkov he went onto attack Kursk. He might have been able to win Kursk if he had kept up the the fire around Prokhorovka. Hitler allowed the Afrika Korps and Italian forces to be destroyed in North Africa, they could have come in handy in defending Sicily and Italy from the invasions that were about too take place. As Rommel later said failing to stop the Western Allies at the beach really screwed things for them up... badly....

9. The Normandy Invasion could have been fought off if Hitler had not been asleep and Rommel visiting his wife. This left the mighty Panzer Divisions halted as the allied infantry stormed the beach. As the US, British and other allies dashed across France the Soviets launched Operation Bagration which took out Army Group Center and led to a advance all the way to outskirts of Warsaw. This was due to Army Group Center being deployed way too far forward and failing to place a commander with some talent (they later did after the damage had been done).

10. By the end of the war Germany was fighting a four front war:

1. Eastern Front
2. Western Front
3. Italian Front
4. Genocide against various peoples

the forth was counter productive in every shape and form. It destroyed many potential allies such as the Ukrainians, Belorussians, baltic peoples and jewish geniuses it wasted a massive amount of resources and manpower into this pointless and self defeating task. The path to victory lay not in a single massive war but in a number of wars one by one paving the way to victory. Hitler also appointed more people who were intuned with his ideas (ie 'yes' men) such as Himmler, Goring and others to field commands. especially towards the end. He put the ME 262 project coulda had it out in 1942 but Hitler didn't like it... This is due to a massive amount of oversight by Hitler. He should have put some time into building a strategic bomber force so he could reach industry which was outta the reach of his short range tactical dive bombers. His ego simply got to big for Germany's good he believed he was unstoppable (who can really blame him? The Wehrmacht was doing the impossible time and time again!) and the result led to disaster.

I believe Germany lost any chance to win the war when Hitler took over surpreme command of the Wehrmacht after the failed assault on Moscow.

 

[wolfen]

Germany lost WW2 because Hitler didn't listen to his Generals.

 

[perseus]

3. During the Battle of Britian Hitler ordered The Luftwaffe to stop targetting RAF airfields and industrial plants to attacking British cities. This only strengthened the British resolve to fight and win. The British Empire was the largest oversea empire ever created. However it was dying and not that strong. If Germany had just kept pounding Britian with air raid after air raid the RAF would slowly but surely give way and Operation Sealion could begin, I think the British ground forces could have put a huge dint in the invasion force but I don't think they could have defeated the Wehrmacht.

Easy. I think you have provided a good summary of the reasons. However, it would have been very difficult for the Kriegsmarine to maintain supply lines across the Channel even with total air superiority. Using the rate of attrition experienced in Norway, Germany would quickly have lost her entire navy. Subsequent wargames suggest that any sizeable German landing force couldn't have moved far inland due to lack of supplies.

In fact the Dunkirk situation was largely brought about by the cutting of Allied supply lines in the South and the British and French still organised sufficient defensive outposts to allow a hasty withdrawal (admittedly if Guderian would have been given free reign early enough in the campaign he would probably have cut of the BEF completely). The defensive capability of the BEF was quite considerable and they would have been up against the same men if a landing was attempted.

Germany should have concentrated on cutting Britain's supply lines via U boats and the bombing of ports.

 

[Easy-8]

Easy. I think you have provided a good summary of the reasons. However, it would have been very difficult for the Kriegsmarine to maintain supply lines across the Channel even with total air superiority. Using the rate of attrition experienced in Norway, Germany would quickly have lost her entire navy. Subsequent wargames suggest that any sizeable German landing force couldn't have moved far inland due to lack of supplies.

Hello. you are right The Royal Navy was much stronger than the Kriegsmarine. The Wolf Packs could certainly destroy supply lines but I don't think they would be very good at creating one. It is worth noting however that if the Luftwaffe had gotten air supremacy they could have done a number on the Royal Navy. Remember in the Pacific Theater the IJN was largely destroyed by air power. And btw once you achieve "total air superiority" it becomes "air supremacy".

In fact the Dunkirk situation was largely brought about by the cutting of Allied supply lines in the South and the British and French still organised sufficient defensive outposts to allow a hasty withdrawal (admittedly if Guderian would have been given free reign early enough in the campaign he would probably have cut of the BEF completely). The defensive capability of the BEF was quite considerable and they would have been up against the same men if a landing was attempted.
.

Well that pretty much goes without saying! Despite the fact common sense pretty much states this as fact many people don't seem to understand this very basic bit of infomation... 300,000+ troops are not gonna die or surrender without first putting up a fight! Yes it would have been a tough shell to crack but it would have been done. Attacking with swift aggression is Guderians Blitzkrieg.

Germany should have concentrated on cutting Britain's supply lines via U boats and the bombing of ports.

I agree. Just keep the BEF contained until it could be destroyed was the best course of action. A problem with going after the BEF was it could have divided the Wehrmachts forces and make the same mistake that led to disaster in a number of offensive operations in the USSR. However by cutting off the the supply lines and destorying its escape. The BEF would crush itself under its own massive weight.

 

[LeEnfield]

Isn't IF a big word with so few letters and on here get used so much.
The British retreat from Dunkirk, well yes they had to retreat the French forces had collapsed on all their flanks, and to stay and fight would have meant that they would have been surrounded and wiped out. Yes some of the French forces had put up a good fight in the Dunkirk area and many of those where evacuated along with the British and formed the basis of the Free French Forces under DeGualle.
Now would we have sued for peace if we had lost these troops, having lived through these events my reply would have have be NO we would have fought on.
Now Britain was still affected by the depression at this and Easy 8 states that the British Empire was crumbling at this time........Well I beg to differ in fact it was probably never stronger. All the Commonwealth stood beside Britain from the start, India raised the largest volunteer army the world had ever seen to fight along side Britain. The only places were we had any resistance in fighting the Germans was from Palestine where the Jews turned on the British troops trying to get a Jewish State, and in Persia where the Germans had been promising the government their help there if they fought British. The British Empire disappeared after the war due to American pressure to break it up in return for loans to keep us going.
The Battle Britain, the RAF coped with out their airfields and fighter production was higher than the losses, the biggest problem was the loss of pilots as training took so long.
The German invasion of Russia.......Well at first the Germans were greeted with open arms in places, but when the SS arrived and started wiping them out then the mood changed. Also Germany never had the manpower to Conquer Russia and control the vast areas.
Normandy............Personally I don't think the Allies would have been thrown back even if Hitler had released the Panzer's earlier. With Allied Air Power and Naval Gunfire they would have still been held, yes the fighting might have been bloodier but in the long run I feel the result would have still been the same.