Why the Germans lost WW2

[Finkeren]

True, the Prussian military tradition has always put a large emphasis on individual initiative, especially among lower echelon officers. The Prussian Army was among the first modern armies to reward Independent actions by officers.

[Bearcat]

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".

 

So if that is the case then why was there no ar,our at Normandy? Some generals believed that Normandy was the target.. including Rommel I believe.. but no one wanted to rock the boat.. they didn't even want to wake Hitler up initially..

[TheBlackPenguin]

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".

 

On the battlefield no doubt! But, what happens if your enemy is your leader? Hitler was not popular with the professional soldiers and indeed made them swear the "Reichswehreid" or Hitler Oath in 1934 to lessen any attempts by the military to oust him, despite that there were numerous attempts with some closer than others (one attempt successfully smuggled a bomb onto a plane Hitler was being transported, unfortunately it failed to go off).

 

I think there is some hints of the likely outcome from some events of the events during the failed July bomb plots, most interestingly the arrest of SS officers in France after the military mistakenly thought Hitler was dead, I think it likely similar events could have happened throughout Germany, although of course we'll never truly know.

[LLv44_Mprhead]

So if that is the case then why was there no ar,our at Normandy? Some generals believed that Normandy was the target.. including Rommel I believe.. but no one wanted to rock the boat.. they didn't even want to wake Hitler up initially..mo

 

Most of the German commanders, also Rommel, believed that there would be another, bigger landing in Pas-de-Calais. This was due to succesful allied deception operation. And it took quite a few days before they realized that normandy was indeed the main landing. Because of uncertainty, German armour was deployed as mobile reserve deeper in France. They just didn't understand how cripling allied airpower would be. Even if tanks might not been in such a great danger as discussed in other thread, moving panzer division takes much more than just driving tanks. So Germans were not able to follow their plan and bring armoured divisions in time to beachhead. (Guns at last light, Atkinson 2013)

[JtD]

So if that is the case then why was there no ar,our at Normandy? Some generals believed that Normandy was the target.. including Rommel I believe.. but no one wanted to rock the boat.. they didn't even want to wake Hitler up initially..

I guess you chose to make that comment instead of googling Auftragstaktik. Otherwise you probably wouldn't have made it. Anyway, how do you think following a couple of orders by the highest ranking military in Germany are the same as a "climate of blind obedience dominating the German military"?

[AX2]

So if that is the case then why was there no ar,our at Normandy? Some generals believed that Normandy was the target.. including Rommel I believe.. but no one wanted to rock the boat.. they didn't even want to wake Hitler up initially..

Maybe a off topic about Rommel's.

 

Rommel's request more tanks to Hitler for Normandy, but Hitler refuse give more tanks for Normandy. 

On the other side Rommel also knew the plan to assassinate Hitler, Rommel's did not warn to Hitler.  

 

 

 

Edited February 14, 2014 by Mustang

[TheBlackPenguin]

Most of the German commanders, also Rommel, believed that there would be another, bigger landing in Pas-de-Calais. This was due to succesful allied deception operation. And it took quite a few days before they realized that normandy was indeed the main landing. Because of uncertainty, German armour was deployed as mobile reserve deeper in France. They just didn't understand how cripling allied airpower would be. Even if tanks might not been in such a great danger as discussed in other thread, moving panzer division takes much more than just driving tanks. So Germans were not able to follow their plan and bring armoured divisions in time to beachhead. (Guns at last light, Atkinson 2013)

 

Not to mention the great success of Operation Deadstick by taking those bridges (Pegasus Bridge being one) thereby denying any of the tanks access to the Normandy beaches (although if they had realised the only ant-tank weapon available had been used...).

[II./JG27_Rich]

Did anyone watch that lecture? Like Glantz says, you walk through a German cemetary and it's Toten Osten, Toten Osten, Toten Osten, Toten Osten. Killed in the east.

Edited February 17, 2014 by II./JG27_Rich

[MiloMorai]

Who destroyed the Luftwaffe? Not the Russians.

[II./JG27_Rich]

Goring ....over extension, swarms of allied fighters over Europe the last year of the war not using the 262 in 1943 when it was available may have helped but I doubt it. America's capability to use so many bombers and fighters day in day out.

Edited February 17, 2014 by II./JG27_Rich

[II./JG27_Rich]

Russian aces probably shot down more German aeroplanes than Western aces anyway.

[LLv44_Mprhead]

Russian aces probably shot down more German aeroplanes than Western aces anyway.

 

Don't know about that, but from operation Barbarossa to end of 1944, Luftwaffe lost 6921 single-engine fighters in Eastern Front and 22855 in West according to this. And all the other statistics I have seen give more or less similar numbers. http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/where-luftwaffe-defeated-33291.html

[DD_Arthur]

Do we have figures for bomber losses on the Eastern front?  The Luftwaffe was the air arm of the Wehrmacht.  The LW was flying artillery.  They certainly did lose a vast amount of single engine fighters in the west but these were easy to replace.  Their problems were pilot training and building bombers to support the army.  It takes a great deal more to build a multi engine aircraft than a fairly simple single seat interceptor.

 

Single engine fighters will give you air superiority but won't stop an army on the ground.  For this you need bombers working in cooperation with an army on the ground.

 

When it comes down to it, after 1941 Germany faced a war of attrition that it could not hope to win. 

[MiloMorai]

Here you go arthur for Sept 43 to Oct 44

 

http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

[Emgy]

Who destroyed the Luftwaffe? Not the Russians.

Since you bring it up, it begs the question, who destroyed the German land forces?

Edited February 17, 2014 by Calvamos

[siipperi]

I think it's pretty safe to say that economy and production or actually lack of it killed Germany. They were build to fight flash war and not grind war. After the Stalingrad they were pretty screwed and after the Kursk lost was sure thing. They weren't fast enough to conquer SU and as ineffective soviets economy was they had huge resources and lots of manpower. There is excellent book about germans economy and lack of resources and how it killed their production, but can't remember the name...

And reason why they couldn't conquer Russian? Logistic. Simple as that. They just couldn't supply enough to keep pushing. Again there is some excellent books about it.

Sure you can make points that war on 2 fronts, tactical failures, failures on minor fronts, etc etc. But in my opinion it's what I mentioned above and I think it's pretty common opinion nowdays.

[Pudfark]

Why the Germans lost WW2 ?

 

No Spam.  

 

Just joking a dab....

[Rama]

And reason why they couldn't conquer Russian? Logistic. Simple as that. They just couldn't supply enough to keep pushing.

Yes... and one of the reasons was the different railway track gauge. Because of that the germans couldn't use the russian railway network.

[Bf-110]

1. Attacking USSR before defeating Britain

2. No aircraft carrier

3. No heavy or strategic bombers

4. Poor relations with Japan and even Italy

 

Additionaly,if they managed to have free pass through Spain and Portugal the Allies would have been in a worse situation.

 

BTW,I didn't get the France subject.How do you mean Germany was no match to France?

I read more than once that their tanks were obsolete by the time,their air force was small comparing to the RAF and Luftwaffe and the army had a shortage of enlisted men due to the low birth rates after the WWI.

[MiloMorai]

Since you bring it up, it begs the question, who destroyed the German land forces?

 

It was the destruction of the Lw that made it possible to destroy the German Army.

[Blooddawn1942]

Yes... and one of the reasons was the different railway track gauge. Because of that the germans couldn't use the russian railway network.

 

And not to forget long supply routes which were exposed to partisan attacks which were a definite threat to germans in poland, belarus and ukraine.

Those partisans were well organized and equipped and also reinforced by regular soviet troops by paradrops.

In the end, the partisan movement broke the spine of german supplys in the east.

[J2_Trupobaw]

1. Western Allies getting involved on what became Soviet side, back when Germans and Soviets were clearing future battlefield in Poland.
2. Mussolini starting more pointless sideshow theaters.
3. Japans bringing US into the war.

In short, WW2 as conflict between two totalitarian states was unevitable, but thanks to series of blunders and need to get rid of Poland, separating both combatants, unwilling to go with either side and allied with Western democracies, German vs Soviet conflict became Soviets + accidental Soviet allies + unplanned enemies Germany still had to fight vs Germany.  

Edited February 18, 2014 by Trupobaw

[II./JG27_Rich]

This is why in my opinion...The most important thing. Once you know what's coming up you can counter it even before it starts. Sink ships shoot down aeroplanes with important supplies etc etc. On and on.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwVnOwCqo1U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1stF0aZUz80

Edited February 19, 2014 by II./JG27_Rich

[unreasonable]

I have always wondered what would have happened if A.H. had not declared war on the USA after Pearl Harbor.

 

- He did not have to do it even though he was allied to the Japanese; he could just have said "on your own mate". It is not as though he had not shafted allies before, and if he thought Slavs were subhuman imagine what he must have thought of the Japanese!

 

- The US did not declare war on Germany, although F.D.R. wanted to go that way the US Congress, and popular opinion, did not. While he was slowly entangling the US navy into the Atlantic convoy business it is not a given that he could have persuaded Congress to declare war on Germany immediately or for that matter ever.

 

- Everyone says that the Germans could not win once they invaded the USSR, but this looks like post-hoc rationalization to me. After all, they did manage to force Russia out of the war in WW1, even with the US and France both in the war. We know now that the Soviet social system did not collapse but without allied supplies who knows what might have happened? (The UK being able to provide almost nothing on its own, being so badly stretched already).

 

- I believe in the end the US would have entered the war to prevent the UK losing, since otherwise it would not get back it's war loans. Same as in WW1. But without the US in the war against Germany it is possible that that the Germans could have won or at least forced a very favourable peace settlement.

[MarcoRossolini]

Not quite sure where the Battle of Britain comes in, the OKW had already given up on the idea but Goering wasn't to be stopped so he embarked on this grand plan to destroy Britain from the air, which given the Luftwaffe's resources and technology, was impossible for them.

 

The Soviets was where it was at. Hitler would have been unassailable in Europe without his grand attack on the USSR. The Soviets supplied the blood, sweat and tears for the Western Allies to come in and steal the glory and the Hollywood movie rights. I'm sceptical of the allied bombing campaign as well... It had little effect on German industry (they increased production until the end) and the only credible explanation I've seen for its effectiveness is that it took away German fighters and AA units needed on the Ostfront. Not really credible considering the thousands of bombers and men flying overhead every night and day.

 

The Eastern Front is ultimately the primary reason the Germans lost, no two ways about it. No Eastern Front, nothing else. Since we've been into lists I'd put in no.2 Hitler.

[MiloMorai]

That 30% loss of production would have been a great help in the East as well as the 1,000,000 plus men/women that were need for defense and repair who could have been put other uses.

[Finkeren]

I don't think we should completely discout the effects of strategic bombing in keeping up the pressure on Germany, but neither should we perpetuate the illusion, that it was a deciding factor in the war.

 

The war was lost for Germany before strategic bombing picked up speed, though there can be no doubt that it might have helped shorten the war by draining German resources faster.

 

To those who say that the bombing efforts more or less destroyed the Luftwaffe in 1944, I say: Sure, but do you really think the Germans could have won the war in 1944, even with a completely intact Luftwaffe? The Germans lost the initiative for good on the Eastern Front without ever really being defeated in the air.

[LLv44_Mprhead]

 

To those who say that the bombing efforts more or less destroyed the Luftwaffe in 1944, I say: Sure, but do you really think the Germans could have won the war in 1944, even with a completely intact Luftwaffe? The Germans lost the initiative for good on the Eastern Front without ever really being defeated in the air.

 

Completely intact Luftwaffe could have ruled the skies in Eastern Front and other resources that could have been used against Soviet Union would have helped for sure. Can't say that Germany would have won without Bombing campaign, but it can also be asked if soviets could have won without it?

[Finkeren]

Completely intact Luftwaffe could have ruled the skies in Eastern Front and other resources that could have been used against Soviet Union would have helped for sure. Can't say that Germany would have won without Bombing campaign, but it can also be asked if soviets could have won without it?

I actually think the events of 1941/42 is testament to the fact that they definately could have. Even a largely intact Luftwaffe was only able to achieve air supremacy over a limited territory, and the impact of the Luftwaffes tactical bombing was nothing to be impressed by, once the de-mechanisation of the war began.

 

Remember, that at no point in the war were there ever more than about 1500 serviceable single seat fighters in the entire Luftwaffe (A number only reached in 1945 btw) and never more than around 1250 twin engined bombers plus a smaller number of ground attack aircraft, even during the times when their losses were remarkably low. They couldn't be everywhere at once.

 

Would the fight have been that much harder? Yes. Would the strain on the Red Army and the VVS have been worse? Yes. Would it have changed the outcome? I highly doubt it.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Finkeren

[LLv44_Mprhead]

Maybe bad choice of words from me. What I meant was that it can be questioned if soviet victory was inevitable in those different conditions mentioned above, not if soviet victory was possible. 

[Finkeren]

That's how I understood it as well. And that's what I answered. Yes, I'm pretty sure an eventual Soviet victory would have been inevitable, even without the allied strategic bombing.

[unreasonable]

Inevitable?  Why?  I am still looking at the example of WW1 where Germany and friends did knock Russia out of the war despite having to fight France, Britain and Italy on the western front(s).

 

In WW2 Germany controlled just about the entire area of the current EU and then some by the end of 1941. In population and GDP it had greater resources than the USSR by that date.   

[Finkeren]

I understand it may sound controversial, but it all goes back to my original post 2 pages back: Germany was never truly winning the war in the first place.

 

My contention that Germany would have lost the war in the East regardless of the Allied strategic bombing, I base on 2 factors:

 

1. The Germans effectively lost the war in the winter 1941-42, when Operation Barbarossa failed its goals, the Wehrmacht was pushed back and Germany ended up at war with the US. Germany was trapped in an unwinnable war, and even the cooler heads in the OKW realised it. At this point strategic bombing didn't really put too much strain on either German production or resources. Thus the outcome of the war was pretty much decided, before strategic bombing really took off.

 

2. The Luftwaffe was never truly defeated in the air by the VVS, but German airpower also failed to make a decisive tactical or strategic impact on the ground war in a single battle on the Eastern Front beyond the wholesale slaughter of the VVS in the opening stages of Barbarossa. There was simply little the Luftwaffe could have done to change the tides in the ground war, especially after the war got de-mechanised.

 

The comparison to WW1 don't really hold up. The German-Soviet war was a different kind of war, where a regular peace settlement wasn't an option. In a "normal" war, any power that took a beating like the USSR did initially would have sued for peace before the summer was over.

 

Also keep in mind, that it was the internal struggles rather than the defeats on the battlefield that pushed Russia out of WW1.

[DD_Arthur]

Inevitable?  Why?  I am still looking at the example of WW1 where Germany and friends did knock Russia out of the war despite having to fight France, Britain and Italy on the western front(s).

 

In WW2 Germany controlled just about the entire area of the current EU and then some by the end of 1941. In population and GDP it had greater resources than the USSR by that date.   

 

Germany did not defeat Russia in strictly military terms.   Russia collapsed from within as the Tsarist system was simply unable to cope with prolonged war on an industrial scale for a whole host of reasons.  Foremost amongst them being its eventual inability to feed its own population whilst maintaining armies in the field.  

A similar process took place amongst the Central powers in the autumn of 1918.

 

Twenty years later the great attraction to both sides of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was not the non-aggression clause but the secret provisions by which both sides regained what they had lost at Versailles and Brest-Litovsk.

 

Certainly by the end of 1941 Germany had conquered a vast area but would never be in a position to realise the productive potential of these conquests.

If they had....well.....they wouldn't have been Nazis so would have been unlikely to have started WW2 in the first place.

 

Edit; +1 to what Finkeren says above.

Edited February 20, 2014 by arthursmedley

[unreasonable]

I buy both Arthurs' and Finkeren's points upto a point, but..

 

The internal collapse could have happened in the USSR too in WW2. We know it did not, but to say that it could not have happened is hard to believe.

 

With the US in the war I completely agree that Germany was a goner. (Leaving aside the bombing campaign issue as a detail - rather large one!)

 

But I still wonder what would have happened if AH had not declared war on the US.

 

I think more widely I have a philosophical difficulty with the notion that such and such an outcome was pre-determined, but this is a much more general point better left for another day!

[Gutermann]

The commitment to the doctrine of the short war was a continuing handicap for the Germans; neither plans nor state of mind were adjusted to the idea of a long war until the failure of the operation Barbarossa.

[Finkeren]

I buy both Arthurs' and Finkeren's points upto a point, but..

 

The internal collapse could have happened in the USSR too in WW2. We know it did not, but to say that it could not have happened is hard to believe.

 

With the US in the war I completely agree that Germany was a goner. (Leaving aside the bombing campaign issue as a detail - rather large one!)

 

But I still wonder what would have happened if AH had not declared war on the US.

 

I think more widely I have a philosophical difficulty with the notion that such and such an outcome was pre-determined, but this is a much more general point better left for another day!

Had the US not become directly involved in the war, many things might have looked different. I'm still convinced, that the overall outcome wouldn't have changed (Germany simply wasn't prepared for the war that they had gotten themselves into) but the struggle might well have been even more bitter, drawn out and bloody and quite posibly more widespread as well (could have meant a much larger conflict in the Middle East)

 

I'm not saying that it was completely inevitable, that the German onslaught didn't cause the USSR to collapse, but by late 1941 (before the US was drawn into the war) it was pretty clear that it wasn't gonna happen, Barbarossa had failed and Germany had lost the war.

 

And yes, this is all viewed from the benefit of hindsight. To most people at the time, the final outcome would have been far from given. Still, after december 1941 it's really difficult to imagine a realistic scenario, where Germany would have won the war.

[Finkeren]

The commitment to the doctrine of the short war was a continuing handicap for the Germans; neither plans nor state of mind were adjusted to the idea of a long war until the failure of the operation Barbarossa.

The German high command didn't have much choice but to plan for a short war. The country did not have the stamina for a long multi-front war in terms of manpower, resources, naval power, productivity and political clout.

 

The OKW knew this, and by the end of 1941 it dawned on many of its members, that they had lost the huge gamble that the war was.

[Sandhill]

The German high command didn't have much choice but to plan for a short war. The country did not have the stamina for a long multi-front war in terms of manpower, resources, naval power, productivity and political clout.

 

The OKW knew this, and by the end of 1941 it dawned on many of its members, that they had lost the huge gamble that the war was.

This.

 

Germany rolled the dice betting all their money on quick concessions from other nations and minimal US intervention.  The Reich's productive capacity was so dwarfed by that of the US and Russia that they simply never had a chance if a conflict lasted for years rather than months.

World War II certainly did distract the Germans from their real problem, the GPW.  Since our forum relates to BoS, it is well to remember that German casualties AT STALINGRAD are of similar magnitude to US or Commonwealth casualties for all of WW2 in all theaters.  Soviet blood and American steel defeated Hitler.

Germany lost WW2 because they "went to a gunfight armed with a knife."  One can only conclude that they just didn't plan well.

[Finkeren]

I agree Arnaud, except for one thing:

 

Germany did not come to a gunfight armed with a knife. They came with a really powerful Colt Python, but with only one bullet in the drum.