Why the Germans lost WW2

[Emgy]

 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.

Yes. German soldiers in Poland and Norway were told, and some memoirs suggest many/most believed, that they were there to protect those countries from communist aggression. The red scare was a big, big deal.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Calvamos

[Finkeren]

Having some or all of the key elements of a certain tactic or strategy in place, doesn't by itself create a strategic or tactical concept, much less a theory.

 

The fact is, that the Manstein Plan that laid out what was to become the German strategic masterplan for Fall Gelb was the first real conceptualisation of what was to become known as blitzkrieg. At the time, the OKW and OKH still thought within the framework of the 19th century concept of "bewegungskrieg" - the idea that you outmaneuver your enemy to disrupt his supply lines, force him to abandon fortified positions and if posible defeat him in detail.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

Why the Germans lost the war? Let's see, could it be because they managed to wage war on the rest of the industrialized world, with only two allies to back them up? Who's going to win, World or Germany, Germany or World? So difficult to choose...

 

One really would have though they would have seen where this would end after last time they decided to go to war against the World, but no such luck.

[Finkeren]

The most interesting thing is not that Germany lost the war, but that it went rather well for so long.

 

Getting into the war in the first place was a huge gamble, and the early German operations got underway on a wing and a prayer. It's testament to some degree of tactical and strategic skill, as well as the ineptitude of most of Germanys opponents, that the whole thing didn't fall apart in 1940.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Finkeren

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

The most interesting thing is not that Germany lost the war, but that it went rather well for so long.

 

Indeed!

[Finkeren]

This is why it is slightly annoying to me, when people claim that Germany wanted to go to war with Great Britain. The German leadership had no such interest in any of the World Wars. Hitler and his government wanted war to be sure, but against the USSR.

[DD_Arthur]

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.

 

This is exactly the reason why and when Germany lost WW2.  The contribution of the western allies was mainly to speed up the inevitable.

 

  The idea that breaking into Enigma coding won the war is almost as laughable as there being any "murky" dealings between Great Britain and Nazi Germany that are yet to be revealed. 

 

This is why it is slightly annoying to me, when people claim that Germany wanted to go to war with Great Britain. The German leadership had no such interest in any of the World Wars. Hitler and his government wanted war to be sure, but against the USSR.

 

 Very true.  Hitler was astonished that Britain decided to call his bluff over Poland.  Germany was never interested in any "world war".  Hitler understood that the German economy could not support such a thing and armed accordingly.  Its still difficult amongst all the rhetoric to discover when exactly Hitler determined on an invasion of Russia.  His first priority, just like all those 'good' democratic Germans of Weimar was to over turn the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles.  Unlike his predecessors Hitler was prepared to launch a war over it.   Thus he required the humiliation of France and the destruction of Poland. 

[JtD]

Having some or all of the key elements of a certain tactic or strategy in place, doesn't by itself create a strategic or tactical concept, much less a theory.

 

The fact is, that the Manstein Plan that laid out what was to become the German strategic masterplan for Fall Gelb was the first real conceptualisation of what was to become known as blitzkrieg. At the time, the OKW and OKH still thought within the framework of the 19th century concept of "bewegungskrieg" - the idea that you outmaneuver your enemy to disrupt his supply lines, force him to abandon fortified positions and if posible defeat him in detail.

I think you're getting lost in semantics. You'd probably argue that a tracked, armoured vehicle with a big gun in a turret isn't a tank, because it doesn't create the theory. But maybe it would help to clarify the definition of Blitzkrieg you want to use, given that there's like half a dozen.

[DD_bongodriver]

if there was no intention of making an invasion then why bother trying to eradicate Britain's fighter force? they were certainly trying to achieve something...........but now apparently people are suggesting they were just disposing of surplus aircraft.

[Sternjaeger]

wow, I leave you for a handful of hours and look at this!

 

Where's my beer?!?!

[Cybermat47]

1. The Battle of Britain

2. The Russian Winter

3. Not enough emphasis on Naval power (especially with the U-bootwaffe)

4. Enigma code being broken

5. VLR Liberators sinking U-boats

6 RAF/RAAF/RCAF/RNZAF/USAAF round-the-clock bombing campaign

Edited February 12, 2014 by Cybermat47

[DD_Arthur]

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!

 

 It is true that they lost the war because of Hitler.  This was because Germany could never win anyway. It had neither the men nor the material to take on the Soviet Union, let alone the Soviet Union and the western allies.  So yes, a fundamental error of judgement. 

 

 However, Hitler proved himself an able tactician and along with Goring the only leader of Germany, either civil or military with any strategic understanding.  It was the principle reason Germany did well in the war in the early years.  He corrected the Wehrmacht's initial plans for the invasion of Poland as he felt they were not bold enough.   He was right.  He understood that Barbarossa would be a one attempt only operation.  The objective was the destruction of the Soviet armed forces and capture of resources.  Moscow was a strategic irrelevance and was not the principle objective according to the original orders.

 

His generals however were set on the personal glory of taking Moscow.  This is where it started to go wrong.  When the Germans were halted before Moscow in December 1941 there is good evidence to show Hitler understood the game was up but he alone had the tactical understanding to order the Ostherr to stand firm after its initial retreat and survive as a coherent unit rather than make a general withdrawl and face being cut up by the advancing Russian armies.

 

After this Hitler did indeed make many mistakes but by then it had dawned on many in the army command and indeed the Nazi party, that Germany could not win the war.  What happened when Hitler let the generals plan an offensive?

 

They gave him Kursk.  

[DD_bongodriver]

What am I misinterpreting?, who declared war on who is irrelevant, the point is that Operation sea lion was a German invasion plan for Britain and it failed because they lost the air battle that preceded it.

[AX2]

1) Hittler was crazy

2) Some facts

• 84 German Generals were executed by Hitler

• Between 1939 and 1945 the Allies dropped 3.4 million tons of bombs, An average of about 27,700 tons of bombs each month.
• Air attacks caused 1/3 of German Generals' deaths
• Germany lost 136 Generals, which averages out to be 1 dead General every 2 weeks.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Mustang

[Sternjaeger]

It is true that they lost the war because of Hitler.  This was because Germany could never win anyway. It had neither the men nor the material to take on the Soviet Union, let alone the Soviet Union and the western allies.  So yes, a fundamental error of judgement.

mmmmh not sure about that, I mean, they really got close to Moscow. Surely they wouldn't have been able to occupy the whole country, but with the help of Japanese and other allied countries they would have had a certain edge. Again, if they consolidated their presence in Europe before venturing to the East they might have made it happen... and this leads to your next point...

 

However, Hitler proved himself an able tactician and along with Goring the only leader of Germany, either civil or military with any strategic understanding.  It was the principle reason Germany did well in the war in the early years.  He corrected the Wehrmacht's initial plans for the invasion of Poland as he felt they were not bold enough.   He was right.  He understood that Barbarossa would be a one attempt only operation.  The objective was the destruction of the Soviet armed forces and capture of resources.  Moscow was a strategic irrelevance and was not the principle objective according to the original orders.

He was not. Every single decision he made was poor, the only successful things the Nazis did were based on the decisions of generals. Hitler had the vision, but lacked the experience or the perseverance necessary to win. He was a very volatile leader, who got irritated when he didn't obtain what he wanted, moving on to a new objective. His problem is that he really believed in the BS he was peddling..

 

His generals however were set on the personal glory of taking Moscow.  This is where it started to go wrong.  When the Germans were halted before Moscow in December 1941 there is good evidence to show Hitler understood the game was up but he alone had the tactical understanding to order the Ostherr to stand firm after its initial retreat and survive as a coherent unit rather than make a general withdrawl and face being cut up by the advancing Russian armies.

 

After this Hitler did indeed make many mistakes but by then it had dawned on many in the army command and indeed the Nazi party, that Germany could not win the war.  What happened when Hitler let the generals plan an offensive?

 

They gave him Kursk.

Kursk was a huge strain, but it was not lost because of poor planning, and it was a close one. The Russian victory was based on the sheer number of tanks, troops and aircraft they could throw at the Germans.

[DD_Arthur]

 

1) Hittler was crazy

 

Hitler was neither crazy nor incompetent.  He was anti-semitic.  It's about the only constant Hitler possessed.  

 

Since 1945 it has been much easier to consider him a fool or a lunatic than reflect on the possibility that he merely represented the culmination of a single nations aims of European domination propagated over the course of the previous forty years.  

[Sternjaeger]

Hitler was neither crazy nor incompetent.  He was anti-semitic.  It's about the only constant Hitler possessed.  

 

Since 1945 it has been much easier to consider him a fool or a lunatic than reflect on the possibility that he merely represented the culmination of a single nations aims of European domination propagated over the course of the previous forty years.

Mmmmh that's a bit reductive man. Hitler was a complex character with schizophrenic traits.. what kinda begs the question is what the heck did the Germans find so fascinating about him.. "Hey Franz... is it me or this Hitler chap is a bit of a nutter?!"

[DD_bongodriver]

Man have you never watched the 'X-factor'?

[Cybermat47]

Man have you never watched the 'X-factor'?

If I wanted people singing, I would listen to something from the 70's or 80's. They had much better music back then.

[DD_Arthur]

Stern; the Germans got really close to Moscow in 1941 but lost.  Napoleon took Moscow in 1812 but lost.  Such is the vast size of Russia that occupying one single city is irrelevant.  Before invading the Soviet Union Hitler did consolidate his position in Europe by occupying an area from Norway to the Franco-Spanish border.  The Japanese were as much use to Hitler as a fart in a thunderstorm.

 

I have given you examples of how Hitler made good decisions both strategically and tactically during the early part of the war which is one of the reasons they did so well.  Again, I urge you to consider the idea that Hitler realised the game was up in the winter of 41/42.  After this time did Hitler start to succumb to his own illusions after realising his war policy could now only fail?  Certainly, but he's hardly alone in that.  Would you not agree that the present governments of both the UK and USA are deluding themselves over what will happen in Afghanistan when NATO forces leave later this year?

 

Kursk was an utter disaster not of Hitlers making.  There was no element of surprise as such were the scale of preparations made the Russians were easily able to realise the thrust of the German advance and made excellent preparation for it.   German tactics were clumsy and unimaginative - frontal assaults on a waiting enemy most often are.

 

The Wehrmacht threw away the armoured reserve built up by Guderian and from then on it was a rapid retreat back across western Russia into eastern Europe.

[Cybermat47]

  The Japanese were as much use to Hitler as a fart in a thunderstorm.

 

Not really. Japanese submarines sailed to Germany to exchange materials. The Japanese supported the U-boat offensive by providing them with bases at Penang and Batavia. And Germany helped Japan by sending them an Me-163, Me-262, V-2, and Uranium aboard U-234.

[DD_Arthur]

Mmmmh that's a bit reductive man. Hitler was a complex character with schizophrenic traits.. what kinda begs the question is what the heck did the Germans find so fascinating about him.. "Hey Franz... is it me or this Hitler chap is a bit of a nutter?!"

 

Well that is the big one isn't it?  What happened to the nation that was the home of European art, science, culture and progressive public policy in the nineteenth century?  I think Bongo has one part of it.

 

Man have you never watched the 'X-factor'?

 

Hitler dealt in and came to power on the back of political and cultural themes that have their root in the German nations long history.  If you take away the rabid, constant anti-Semitism then quite simply Hitler's policy was no more and in some ways rather less than that of Wilhelmein Germanys.

 

  http://husky1.stmarys.ca/~wmills/course520/fischer.html

[MiloMorai]

Kursk was an utter disaster not of Hitlers making.  There was no element of surprise as such were the scale of preparations made the Russians were easily able to realise the thrust of the German advance and made excellent preparation for it.   German tactics were clumsy and unimaginative - frontal assaults on a waiting enemy most often are.

 

 

It was Hitler's decision to postpone Kursk so that a large number of Tigers were available. The Russians were not that well prepared a couple of months previously.

[DD_Arthur]

Not really. Japanese submarines sailed to Germany to exchange materials. The Japanese supported the U-boat offensive by providing them with bases at Penang and Batavia. And Germany helped Japan by sending them an Me-163, Me-262, V-2, and Uranium aboard U-234.

 

Yes really.  How could any of these things have possibly helped to fend off defeat.   What Stalin and the allies got was an excellent insight into German war intentions from the Storge network and US codebreaking of Japanese diplomatic ciphers.

It was Hitler's decision to postpone Kursk so that a large number of Tigers were available. The Russians were not that well prepared a couple of months previously.

 

Hitler made that decision on the advice of Guderian and it was not so much the availability of Tigers but teething troubles in Panthers that caused the start date to be pushed back by - I think, but I'm willing to be corrected - around two weeks?

[kongxinga]

One argument I have seen is that it was the Japanese who dragged Germany into Japan's ill thought off plan of conquest. Personally I don't think the Russians could have held without lend lease and more importantly the US and other western allies pressuring italy then the Western Front. Imagine all those extra panzer divisions, SS divisions and planes on the east, along with Kesselring not having to go to Italy to shore it up. Most sources seem to indicate Germany was in the dark about the stupidity of pearl harbor, but was honorable/ boneheaded enough to not cut their lousy ally loose.

 

At least that's how it is played out in most hard core wargames such as War in Russia by Gary Grisby etc

 

From what I have read (Nationalist Chinese Sources), the Japanese got wind that germany was planning on cutting them loose ever since Japan got bloodied on Russia and thus was unwilling to coordinate. Japan had no meaningful or important resources to offer in more than token amounts, could not coordinate and did their own thing. Talks were ramping up with the Chinese, meaning Japan was going to be cut loose, and thus to force the issue, Japan went ahead and accelerated the pearl harbor plan. When pearl harbor did happen, talks stopped between china and germany permanently.

Edited February 13, 2014 by kongxinga

[Fifi]

On side note, war could have turned totally different if the jets project was not deliberately slowed down (again by the leader himself).

ME 262 could have been ready by 1942, if all requirements were fully allowed, and no spokes putted in engineers wheels.

If the leader wasn't that blinded by his own pride, he would have realised how important was this project...and thousands of 262 could have give Allies very hard times.

And probably the 262 could have enough time to evolve in something else...like a real jet bomber 

[Sternjaeger]

Stern; the Germans got really close to Moscow in 1941 but lost.  Napoleon took Moscow in 1812 but lost.  Such is the vast size of Russia that occupying one single city is irrelevant.  Before invading the Soviet Union Hitler did consolidate his position in Europe by occupying an area from Norway to the Franco-Spanish border.  The Japanese were as much use to Hitler as a fart in a thunderstorm.

 

I have given you examples of how Hitler made good decisions both strategically and tactically during the early part of the war which is one of the reasons they did so well.  Again, I urge you to consider the idea that Hitler realised the game was up in the winter of 41/42.  After this time did Hitler start to succumb to his own illusions after realising his war policy could now only fail?  Certainly, but he's hardly alone in that.  Would you not agree that the present governments of both the UK and USA are deluding themselves over what will happen in Afghanistan when NATO forces leave later this year?

 

Kursk was an utter disaster not of Hitlers making.  There was no element of surprise as such were the scale of preparations made the Russians were easily able to realise the thrust of the German advance and made excellent preparation for it.   German tactics were clumsy and unimaginative - frontal assaults on a waiting enemy most often are.

 

The Wehrmacht threw away the armoured reserve built up by Guderian and from then on it was a rapid retreat back across western Russia into eastern Europe.

they got 50km away from it, Stalin already packed his shit and left. It's a long one to go through, but the bottom line is that Hitler was a only a good propaganda leader who really believed he was good at what he did, which (fortunately) he wasn't.

[Cybermat47]

Yes really. How could any of these things have possibly helped to fend off defeat. What Stalin and the allies got was an excellent insight into German war intentions from the Storge network and US codebreaking of Japanese diplomatic ciphers.

 

You do know that the U-boat offensive was Hitler's last hope for victory in 1943? In fact, it almost caused Britain to surrender in April-March of that year! U-boats operating from Japanese bases in the Indian Ocean could have caused the Allied navies to send ships into the Indian ocean, and make things much easier for the Atlantic Wolfpacks. If the Indian Ocean and/or Atlantic supply lines were cut, Britain would surrender and Germany could move their forces east, and Fatherland would be non-fiction.

 

Hitler was neither crazy nor incompetent. He was anti-semitic. It's about the only constant Hitler possessed.

 

Since 1945 it has been much easier to consider him a fool or a lunatic than reflect on the possibility that he merely represented the culmination of a single nations aims of European domination propagated over the course of the previous forty years.

 

Because sane competent people hear angels telling them to murder Jews, kill their own generals, have incestuous abusive relationships with their nieces, and focus more on gassing minorities than winning a war. Right. Edited February 13, 2014 by Cybermat47

[Cybermat47]

Wait, this topic is getting a bit heated. I'm just going to leave it for a while.

[Cybermat47]

Wait, arthursmedley is actually mostly right. I was just being an egotistical teenager again (DAMN YOU PUBERTY!). While the Japanese/German technology exchange was useful, neither side had time to put the technology to use, and the Monsun Gruppe never had a hope of cutting off the Indian Ocean supply lines, because my Grandfather on my Father's side was the radio operator on HMAS Norman, and they didn't want to mess with him. That and the IJN didn't co-operate with the Kriegsmarine much.

 

Also, the uranium on U-234 purportedly ended up being dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, so the Japanese/German alliance actually ended up shortening the war. That's a terrible alliance.

 

That said, Hitler was still a crazy person who raped his own niece and made terrible decisions later in the war that wasted the lives of a lot of German soldiers.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Cybermat47

[TheBlackPenguin]

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.

 

 

 

Yes, that was a major error indeed, but its not the only reasons to consider,  the German Kreigsmarine/Weirmacht may have suffered its greatest defeat (before Stalingrad) if it had launched with canal barges, Britain was never on its knees as much as has been said due to the Royal Navy and still increasing industrial output. RN Cruisers and perhaps heavier units in amongst canal barges would have been an absolute massacre even with a heavy Luftwaffe presence, although with satellite fields away from main airbases (my great-uncle fought out of one these near Gravesend) its arguable just how much superioty they could have ever won and that's not even counting the unpredictable weather.

 

Don't discount the increasingly heavy raids around the channel by Bomber command during the BoB, this has even been mentioned in the book, "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" as the author saw train loads of injured soldiers returning from the Channel ports, so this is another piece to the puzzle.

 

Obviously Hitler and Goering didn't know what they would be getting into by waging war on Britain and the Commonwealth with friends as well.

 

I wonder if the Nazi leadership ever read quotes from Mao Tse Tung?

 

"So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.

If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.

If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself."

 

The East was the main aim for Hitler's ideals of "Lebensraum", the majority of the Nazi war machine was built for this purpose, it would have been needed to be redesigned quite significantly to tackle the UK and USA and he always hoped for peace on his terms with the UK (which seemed to basically be, leave mainland Europe to us and we'll leave you alone).

[Finkeren]

I think people misinterprete the purpose of the planned invasion of GB. The Germans had no intention of permanently occupying the British Isles. They simply wanted Britain and its Commonwealth out of the war. The same goes for most of the other occupied territories in Western Europe. Germany had neither the manpower nor the ressources to keep half of Europe occupied in perpetuity. Had Operation Sea Lion succeeded, I think there is little doubt, that Great Britain, France, The Low Countries and Scandinavia would soon have been left by the Germans (some in a slightly diminished state) once it was made sure, that they could pose no threat to German hegemony. Then the Germans would have turned their attention eastwards and propably won. The conquest was always supposed to take place in the East.

On side note, war could have turned totally different if the jets project was not deliberately slowed down (again by the leader himself).

ME 262 could have been ready by 1942, if all requirements were fully allowed, and no spokes putted in engineers wheels.

If the leader wasn't that blinded by his own pride, he would have realised how important was this project...and thousands of 262 could have give Allies very hard times.

And probably the 262 could have enough time to evolve in something else...like a real jet bomber

And how exactly would that have changed anything? The Germans decisively lost the initiative in 1942, but they had been trapped in an unwinnable war for even longer.

[Finkeren]

I think you're getting lost in semantics. You'd probably argue that a tracked, armoured vehicle with a big gun in a turret isn't a tank, because it doesn't create the theory. But maybe it would help to clarify the definition of Blitzkrieg you want to use, given that there's like half a dozen.

Pardon me for not making myself clear: I'm refering to blitzkrieg as a conceptual framework and a strategic theory, because my point was, that the Wehrmacht wasn't built for the purpose of blitzkrieg, simply because blitzkrieg as a military concept didn't exist before the second half of 1940.

[TheBlackPenguin]

I think people misinterprete the purpose of the planned invasion of GB. The Germans had no intention of permanently occupying the British Isles. They simply wanted Britain and its Commonwealth out of the war. The same goes for most of the other occupied territories in Western Europe. Germany had neither the manpower nor the ressources to keep half of Europe occupied in perpetuity. Had Operation Sea Lion succeeded, I think there is little doubt, that Great Britain, France, The Low Countries and Scandinavia would soon have been left by the Germans (some in a slightly diminished state) once it was made sure, that they could pose no threat to German hegemony. Then the Germans would have turned their attention eastwards and propably won. The conquest was always supposed to take place in the East.

 

Britain would have fought on from Canada (they had plans to do this), war would still not have been finished completely in the West and if the Nazi's had left the Western countries as puppet states, in Britain the likely candidate for leadership would have been Oswald Mosley and over 2000 people arrested according to the "Sonderfahndungsliste G.B" (Black Book) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book. US entry into the European War may or may not have occurred without the British Isles still going on, but would Japan then have attacked Pearl Harbor? If the US had joined the war without the British Isles being available would we have seen great carrier fleets being for the Atlantic in similar style to the Pacific? Would peace in Europe been at the cost of an atomic bomb being dropped in Europe?

 

Lots and lots of what-if's .

[Finkeren]

Indeed there are, but I think you misunderstood me.

 

When I say "if operation Sea Lion had succeeded", I don't mean succeeded in the sense of the Wehrmacht occupying Britain, I mean it in the sense of forcing Britain and the Commonwealth to sue for peace, which, as you said, was not a given thing, even if Britain had been conquered, in which case Sea Lion would actually have been a failure, even if it met all its military goals.

[TheBlackPenguin]

Indeed there are, but I think you misunderstood me.

 

When I say "if operation Sea Lion had succeeded", I don't mean succeeded in the sense of the Wehrmacht occupying Britain, I mean it in the sense of forcing Britain and the Commonwealth to sue for peace, which, as you said, was not a given thing, even if Britain had been conquered, in which case Sea Lion would actually have been a failure, even if it met all its military goals.

 

Oh it was a close thing  after Dunkirk from what I believe with more than a few wanting to sue for peace . Yes, things could have been "interesting".

[Finkeren]

More than anything it was propably the stubborn defiance of especially the British and Soviet peoples and their leadership (regardless of what else you might think of them    ) that won the war. No offense to the nations that didn't hold out quite so well, they all contributed  (except for my own country - that was just embarrassing  )

[Bearcat]

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.

 

I agree to a large extent.. Germany lost the war largely because of Hitler .. and the climate of blind obedience that dominated the German military. Just look at what happened on D-Day and why it was so successful... That pattern was repeated throughout the war.. from strategic decisions to logistic decisions.. Had it all been left up to Germany's most competent generals the war would have had a different ending or at the very least gone much differently from the way it did.

[JtD]

.. and the climate of blind obedience that dominated the German military...

Not true. Flexibility in command and execution of orders at all levels was one of the main reasons for German military success in WW2. Waiting for the next order without showing any initiative was a thing characteristic for other participants in the conflict, and I don't just mean the Soviets and Japanese (which certainly were most extreme). So time and again the Germans were able to seize the initiative while their opponents were still waiting for the next order. Google "Auftragstaktik".

[JtD]

Pardon me for not making myself clear: I'm refering to blitzkrieg as a conceptual framework and a strategic theory, because my point was, that the Wehrmacht wasn't built for the purpose of blitzkrieg, simply because blitzkrieg as a military concept didn't exist before the second half of 1940.

OK then. I'm just saying that even though they hadn't completed the theory, they practically did it in the Polish campaign.