Jump to content
MiloMorai

Why the Germans lost WW2

Recommended Posts

1. The enigma code was broken

2. The Russians

3. The Russian winter

4. The RAF and USAAF round-the-clock bombing

5. Very poor strategic decisions

6. Crappy friends

7. Bad, bad PR...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1. The enigma code was broken

2. The Battle of Britain

3. The Russian winter + the Russians

4. The RAF and USAAF round-the-clock bombing

5. Very poor strategic decisions

6. Crappy friends

7. Bad, bad PR...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(seriously though, I think the Battle of Britain mattered more to Great Britain than Germany, the Allied victory in North Africa was much more of a serious hit IMHO)

Edited by Sternjaeger
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Germans won the battle of Britain then there would not have been an allied invasion of Normandy or the RAF/USAAF round the clock bombing.....pretty obvious really.

Edited by DD_bongodriver
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(seriously though, I think the Battle of Britain mattered more to Great Britain than Germany, the Allied victory in North Africa was much more of a serious hit IMHO)

 

 

Think it really mattered more to USA as it enabled them to break the Luftwaffe day fighters in '43 due to a perfect floating aircraft carrier to launch heavy bombers from which couldn't be sunk.......

 

on a side note, wow,

 

kingman-aaf-boneyard-post-wwii.jpg

 

:o:

Edited by fruitbat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah well fair enough, still think two fronts would have caused them a lot of headaches, and the dispersion of personnel to maintain a solid presence in Great Britain would have been quite a logistic strain (I can imagine a lot of "Dad's Army Resistance" happening..).. aaaah history what-ifs, best discussed in a pub in front of a pint ;-)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah well fair enough, still think two fronts would have caused them a lot of headaches, and the dispersion of personnel to maintain a solid presence in Great Britain would have been quite a logistic strain (I can imagine a lot of "Dad's Army Resistance" happening..).. aaaah history what-ifs, best discussed in a pub in front of a pint ;-)

 

won't argue with that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

won't argue with that!

we did this with a bunch of lads once, we split into two 4-strong sides, Axis and Allies, we started from 1939 and for each "what-if" victory, the losing side had to buy the winning side a pint. We didn't make it past 1943.

Edited by Sternjaeger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also modern day AMARC is impressive, with "just" the cold war plane production.

 

F-84s_scrap_AMARC_NAN6-80.jpg

 

On a side note, I tried to find a picture of a few million PPSh-41, without any luck ;(.

Edited by Calvamos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The enigma code was broken

2. The Russians

3. The Russian winter

No matter what us Westerners think I think Russia won the WWII

 

Edited by II./JG27_Rich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They lost the war only due to one matter/fact ---> the leader himself! 

 

He made too many heavy judgment errors, and was crapy tactician. 

(the list is too long to be listed here - but so many books about it)

None of the German success came from the leader himself. Always from very capable generals, and cherry on the cake, he later on dismissed them!

 

No, they couldn't win the war with a guy like that.

In fact, it was a chance for the Allies, he was so incapable!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Hitler.

2. Goering

3. German Kriegsmarine or lack thereof.

4. Chamberlain for not standing up to Hitler much earlier, Britain and France could have walked into Germany before she was fully re-armed.

5. Attacking Russia before dealing with the West. Most seems to go back to point 1....

 

Further along with the "what iffery", without the US involvement and Britain not surviving the Battle of Britain (it was also the first publicised defeat of the Nazi regime afiak), the Soviet Union could still have defeated Nazi Germany and overrun a much weakened Europe, perhaps all the way through France and then been at the doorstep of Britain.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that how you measure "winning"? I think the US were the sole victors..

The Americans didn't kill many Germans. You need to kill the enemy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore, where Russians were really winners, is by extending their hold on other countries! 

Americans just won our eternal gratitude  :)

 

But looking further, Germany was also a winner in the industrial supremacy and economical hold, few years later  :P ...as well as Japan.

Edited by Fifi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Americans didn't kill many Germans. You need to kill the enemy!

 

Furthermore, where Russians were really winners, is by extending their hold on other countries! 

Americans just won our eternal gratitude  :)

 

But looking further, Germany was also a winner in the industrial supremacy and economical hold, few years later  :P ...as well as Japan.

 

...erm, fellas, the Americans basically bought themselves our alliance (think of the Marshall plan!), and this empowered them to use us as a big aircraft carrier/military base out of their mainland... you gotta look beyond the immediate cause and effect..

Edited by Sternjaeger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me it seems pretty basic:

 

Germany was never truly on the course of winning the war in the long run. Almost every single large operation the Wehrmacht undertook in those 6 years stretched its ressources to the maximum, and with enemies that refused to pull out of the fight it was only a matter of time before a breaking point was reached. They came close in the early summer 1940 to a political victory, but the British refused a peace deal, and thus the Germans was trapped in their own war, which they weren't prepared for nor had the ressources or industrial stamina to win.

 

People who say that "it was a mistake to assault the USSR" overlook the fact, that the war in the East was always the main goal for both the nazi leadership and a good deal of the more geopolitically driven OKW. There was no way that war would have been skipped or postponed for much longer than was the case.

 

Germany lost the war definitively during the first half of December 1941, when within a couple of days they were pushed back from Moscow and ended up at war with the USA. Barbarossa had failed, it was clear that the Soviet state wasn't about to break down and the world greatest productive potential was firmly in the opposing camp.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it still remains that if they hadn't poked the Russian bear with a stick, we might have had a slightly different scenario: Great Britain was on its knees, and it wouldn't have taken much longer to conduct a full scale invasion. If the Luftwaffe stopped bombing the cities and concentrated mainly on crippling airports and establishing a solid costal presence, a landing would have been feasible, and they would have steamrolled into England in no time. The Brits were still licking their wounds from Dunkirk, and I doubt it would have been hard for the German Panzer divisions to swarm through England. Once you have England, you wouldn't even have had to worry about Scotland and Wales.

 

They really were this close to cross the Channel, but ironically Hitler was the best thing the Brits could hope for: his volatility and impatience to invade Russia meant the Brits had the time to catch a breath, reinforce their assets and invite the Americans to join the party..

 

World domination might have been unattainable (although there was plenty of Quislings..), but Europe would have been theirs and it would have been really hard to take it off their hands..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one minute the Channel was the reason the Germans lost BoB and then next minute they could have skipped across almost at will, Britain was not ready to break at that instant, it could have repelled an invasion, that was the whole point of Operation sea lion and hence why it was cancelled, I have no doubts the outcome of the war could easily have been different without American involvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always wonder if small things early on could have made a difference eventually. For instance, what if Bismarck had not been hit by that Swordfish torpedo? On some fronts, particularly on the Atlantic, the Allies were stretched very thin, just like the Germans, and even small events might have accumulated into a big difference in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it still remains that if they hadn't poked the Russian bear with a stick....

See, this is where I think most analysis on this topic fail. There really is no "if" in this case. The war against the USSR was the overall goal of the German expansion and was the main reason Germany attacked Poland in the first place, there is no way that war would simply have been abandoned in favor of a war against Britain that Germany had no interest in.

 

Germany didn't want to pick a fight with the UK, they were more than happy to go for a deal sorta like the German Empire had had post 1871, where the British kept their empire and accepted German hegemony in Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one minute the Channel was the reason the Germans lost BoB and then next minute they could have skipped across almost at will, Britain was not ready to break at that instant, it could have repelled an invasion, that was the whole point of Operation sea lion and hence why it was cancelled, I have no doubts the outcome of the war could easily have been different without American involvement.

 

The Channel was just an obstacle they were getting ready to cross, the advantage of being such a narrow stretch of water meant that the Royal Navy would have struggled to be effective, as bringing all your ships in such a confined space without an adequate aerial cover would have been like shooting fish in a barrel. Don't forget that the Luftwaffe was still quite strong, and surely stronger than the RAF by the end of 1940. 

The operation was cancelled because they needed to move their air force to support Barbarossa: whilst in UK the thing was perceived as the victory of a battle, the Germans gave little importance to what was defined as an "interruption of operations", which yes, never resumed, but wasn't considered "the end" at the time.

 

See, this is where I think most analysis on this topic fail. There really is no "if" in this case. The war against the USSR was the overall goal of the German expansion and was the main reason Germany attacked Poland in the first place, there is no way that war would simply have been abandoned in favor of a war against Britain that Germany had no interest in.

 

Germany didn't want to pick a fight with the UK, they were more than happy to go for a deal sorta like the German Empire had had post 1871, where the British kept their empire and accepted German hegemony in Europe.

 

They should have never invaded Poland in the first place, which offered the perfect cushion to put distance between Russia and Germany. Had they kept it as a separation state, the Russians and Germans might have come to a clash only later, but bear in mind that, unlike the Germans, the Russians had little interest in the domination of Europe. They needed a playground to test their tactics, and Poland was a tasty opportunity.. 

 

Regarding Germany VS Great Britain, there is still a bit of murky water and grey areas in the political relationships and attempted deals done behind the curtains.. Rudolf Hess' flight fiasco is probably only the tip of a much much bigger iceberg, and surely even among the royal family there were some sympathisers of the nazis.. it will be a long time before the whole background to this story comes to light: the documentation and cabinet enquiries are there, but are mostly still classified.

Edited by Sternjaeger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure that I read that the Kreigsmarine were not too confident that they could get the army over and keep them supplied. Yes the RN would suffer heavy casualties  but if the invasion force was disrupted then the Admiralty would think it worth losing some of the older battleships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, this is where I think most analysis on this topic fail. There really is no "if" in this case. The war against the USSR was the overall goal of the German expansion and was the main reason Germany attacked Poland in the first place, there is no way that war would simply have been abandoned in favor of a war against Britain that Germany had no interest in.

 

Germany didn't want to pick a fight with the UK, they were more than happy to go for a deal sorta like the German Empire had had post 1871, where the British kept their empire and accepted German hegemony in Europe.

 

This is true. At least the part of war against USSR being inevitable. Hitler's ultimate goal was to carve empire for Germans from the east, you know "drang nach osten" and "lebenstraum" etc. Also there was the ideological factor of wanting to destroy communism that played far more significant role in decision making of Hitler than many realize.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure that I read that the Kreigsmarine were not too confident that they could get the army over and keep them supplied. Yes the RN would suffer heavy casualties  but if the invasion force was disrupted then the Admiralty would think it worth losing some of the older battleships.

 

 

yes, but you would use a staggered approach, with waves of crafts. The price of replacing one hundred 30-men craft vs losing an aircraft carrier would have been unbearable for the Brits, not to mention that the North Sea and Channel was infested with U-Boote.

 

Also don't forget that the Germans were the first ones to have a truly effective airborne force, and a wave of Fallschirmjaeger the night before (like the Allies did) would have made quite a cracking bridge head.. 

 

It would have been quite a strong strain, but it could be done, and if the UK fell, then it would have been it for Europe. 

 

Russians would have shat their pants in front of the might of the operation, but either they would have used the opportunity to launch an attack then (and they weren't ready for it in 1940/41), or they would have stuck to the non aggression pact.

Edited by Sternjaeger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, the Battle of Britain was the turning point in the war, any other outcome as you quite rightly said would have been game over for Europe, and without the UK to train it's military the US would not have faired well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have never invaded Poland in the first place, which offered the perfect cushion to put distance between Russia and Germany. Had they kept it as a separation state, the Russians and Germans might have come to a clash only later, but bear in mind that, unlike the Germans, the Russians had little interest in the domination of Europe. They needed a playground to test their tactics, and Poland was a.

Again you're completely ignoring that the central geopolitical goal of Germany was conquest of the western part of the USSR. This was not just a nazi ideological quest for "lebensraum", it was the central turning point of the long term German strategy.

 

Poland became an obstacle to the German ambitions in the East and that's why they were attacked, not to act as a training ground for the German military. Just weeks before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Poland had finally and categorically refused to collaborate with Germany in their adventures in the East. The war with Poland dragged Germany into a war with the Western powers, which it neither desired nor was prepared for. Only when Germany spectacularly defeated France and the BEC in a huge and tremendously risky gamble (which later became known as "blitzkrieg") did the idea of German military invincibility seep into the minds of some in the German military and political leadership.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just 1 thote about the BoB. The luftwaffe started operations by bombing the airfields and RAF, but when the RAF bombed Germany Hitler desade to bomb the citys. And theat was a crushal misstake for germany, 1 theat Britany head hope for. They secrefaced the citys to give the RAF a brithing space and time to recover. And next thing is when u check the numbers of combat sorties theat german pilots did, they were much hire then british pilots, the RAF roteted there pilots. Then the use of 109 for close escort for bombers was bad and not so good organised, the 109 were in the air much earlyer and weiting for bombers , there for they head wey to low fuel for fighting the RAF planes.

There is a much resons for loosing the war, and sombady say it good, the germany couldnt fight it long. Hole concept of germany military was the bliztkrieg. And it faild in russia terebly. And much of the bliztkrieg faild on Hitlers orders.

For instance the von Rundstedt was insisting to go toword the Moscow but Hitler ordered him to return and help in encirclement in Kiev. It was the bigest encirclement in history and if i remember corectly same 600 000 solders were captured, but it didnt help in ending the war. And after theat von Rundstedt insisted for push on moscow but hitler woned the stalingrad and leningrad. And it cost him tereably. But there were many many more things theat made the course of war go as it dead.

And not to say about fighting on several fronts, losing the enigma codes and not noing about it, and much much more things. Dont foget theat germany hade lots of trops tied in ocupaide countrys fighting the resistance and constant diversions on logistics, wich is the crucial thing for any army.

Thing is the most important thing is how well the army is suplayed and then with what eqvipment. Iven the best of weapons cannt do anything without the suplays.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to note one thing:

 

It is a misconception, that the German military was centered around some kind of genius idea of the blitzkrieg. "Blitzkrieg" as a concept was born out of necessity in a desperate situation in 1940, where the OKW realised, that they did not have the strength to decisively defeat the French Army on the battlefield and didn't have the endurance for a war of attrition.

 

The concept was only formally theorised in preparation for Operation Barbarossa, and the Wehrmacht never fully adapted to it, with only a minority of German units ever becoming fully mechanised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..."Blitzkrieg" as a concept was born out of necessity in a desperate situation in 1940...

The Germans used Blitzkrieg tactics in Poland already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LordM. The USAAF heavies targeted cities and destroyed the Lw.

 

Stern, how were the Germans going to sink the aircraft carrier called Great Britain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea was there but army didnt manage to mechanised its trops. When the germans rushing to size the Dunkirk and allmost rich it they hade to stop and weit the suplays and rest , giving the british time to recover lurge number of trops. And agen concept of bliztkrieg was lecking mechanised infrantry. Iven in Operation Barbarossa according to wikipedia (not the best source ) In addition to troops, Barbarossa used 600,000 motor vehicles and 750,000 horses. So the entire war germans were lacking the components for bliztkrieg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Germans used Blitzkrieg tactics in Poland already.

No, sorry. They did regular encirclement battles on a smaller scale and did employ an unprecedented level of cooperation between different arms, but that is not what blitzkrieg is.

 

Blitzkrieg involves large mechanised and armoured forces penetrating deep behind enemy lines completely bypassing enemy troop concentrations and fortifications and operating independently often without direct contact to their own supply lines. It is a very risky tactic, but the potential result is the complete destruction of much larger forces with very small losses, if the enemy is succesfully Cut off.

 

This tactic on a strategic level was extremely succesful in France in 1940 much to the surprise of much of the German military leadership, who had agreed to the plan, because they saw no chance to defeat the French Army and the BEF on the battlefield.

In reality Blitzkrieg is a more risky but also more economical version of the 1930 Soviet theory of "deep battle", perfectly suited for the well trained Wehrmacht, which often fought against numerically supperior opponents.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they didn't just do regular encirclement battles. They used concentrated mechanized units to penetrate deep into enemy held territory completely bypassing enemy troop concentrations. The fact that the weak German tanks could not operate on their own on a strategic level and the fact that overall the initial strategy was no Blitzkrieg, doesn't change the fact the the key elements were deployed tactically and regionally. The first armoured divisions were at Warsaw after a week, and that was not part of some sort of encirclement battle they were doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×