Why Germany lost WW2?

[spikey360]

Yes he did & he sacked most of them .... some we killed.

Whom did he sack?
...............

 

[spikey360]

Hitler lost World War 2 because of multiple reasons, and reasons are there at multiple layers.
From a strategic pov, he lacked Allies. Having two major allies in a World War is very risky. The worst became a reality when Rome fell. I disagree with those who say Op Barbarossa was a mistake. It was a runaway success. Only Hitler knew nothing about mission creep. Should have taken Moscow, instead of rushing to Baku. Excessive obsession with Stalingrad proved to be his downfall.

 

[south block]

Whom did he sack?
...............

Franz Halder --- force retirement is sacking for me.

Hitler lost World War 2 because of multiple reasons, and reasons are there at multiple layers.
From a strategic pov, he lacked Allies. Having two major allies in a World War is very risky. The worst became a reality when Rome fell. I disagree with those who say Op Barbarossa was a mistake. It was a runaway success. Only Hitler knew nothing about mission creep. Should have taken Moscow, instead of rushing to Baku. Excessive obsession with Stalingrad proved to be his downfall.

This point I agree Baku, Stalingrad was a big mistake --- there was enough oil from Romanian oil fields for german military & industry for time being --- concentrating forces from all three group would have made sure Moscow capture but it would have exposed german southern flank & still would not have guarantied german total victory as Stalin would have moved his base of operation further east.

 

[Longewala]

Attacked Russia.....

Never worked for anyone.

Had some amazing initial victories due to Stalin, who 1. purged senior generals such as Tukhachevsky, the original Guderian, so that soviet armored corps were badly led, and 2. refused to put forces on war footing ensuring his air force was wiped out on the ground (a precursor to 1967)

But then diverted forces to capture the Ukraine breadbasket, failed to finish off the Soviets before winter 1941
And that was the end, even though took years for both sides to realise.

A couple of things Hitler failed to appreciate
1. The massive amount of reserve troops Soviets had especially because they learnt Japan was going to stay neutral on Soviet front (another long story),
2. Soviet production capacity. Yanks producing massive amounts of material, given no direct war impact, industrialisation and mass production, understandable.
But Soviets? Despite large parts if their country occupied, loss of manpower, shifting industries?

The Germans produced (from memory so could be off) 15,000 panzer 3/4s in total.

Soviets produced more than that in a SINGLE year, 1943
Germany had ten panzer divisions in France 1940, 22 roughly in 1941 (with many obsolete tanks)
Soviets were producing the equivalent of a t-34 equipped (best tank of the war) panzer division EVERY Week, week after week, by 1943!

Try beating that....

 

[mayfair]

what makes you thinking he admired UK?? He hated UK with a passion
and wanted to annhilate them.

Not really sure of his inner feelings, but Hitler's half-brother lived in UK and died there. Hitler even vivisted his half-bro in UK at least once.

 

[asianobserve]

He is right. Hitler loved Germanic people which included the English. Hitler's ideology was a race based one and he himself declared that the USSR invasion was a race war. You can refer Wiki.

He only loves Germanic people if they share or fit into his mad ideology. A lot of Germans who were mentally ill, communists, anti-NAZI resistance and gays were put into concentration camps and then to extermination camps.

Certainly most of the British are anti-NAZI and would resist NAZIs in Britain after England capitulates. Idon't think Hitler will love the Brits.

 

[asianobserve]

Great point --- Hitler consider himself all knowing & a great tactician when he was not & he surrounded himself with yes man --- no wonder many plotted against him.
Yes WW2 did play a role in weakening of British Raj but what really sealed British fate in subcontinent was indian navy mutiny of 1946 in my opinion.

The most important reason that sealed the British Raj's fate post WW2 was the econonical weakening of UK due to vast debts incurred fighting 2 successive World Wars. Had WW1 and WW2 did not happen or were quickly ended, UK would be in a much superior position to resist external and internal pressures to leave India.

Of course there were also other factors. But the main one still remains economic. The UK after the war could not maintain the Raj.

 

[asianobserve]

Germany lost WWII the moment Hitler decided to postpone taking Moscow to go South for the oil fields.

Even if Stalin did not divert his forces to take Stalingrad and won Southfield oilfields still his victory was not guaranteed. The allies could have simply bomb the facilities there to deny Hitler crude supply and the Russians could counter-attack.

With essentially the whole highly industrialized World against him, and with very little help from his allies, Hitler's adventure was doomed. It was only a matter of time before he was totally defeated (being mad that he was I'm sure he will not sue for peace).

 

[no smoking]

#OP Barbarossa mistake is an incidental loss due to the campaign getting dragged into winter otherwise if they had started 2 weeks ago as planned, the German war machine was much superior than Russians and the calculation of the timeline of victory was on point.

Russians have proved that they have no problem to turn any of their city into a battlefield (including Moscow). Even if the attack started 2 weeks early, the best result is the Germany would have to fight Russians in Moscow for whole winter.

They would have won it and grabbed the oil fields for which they had invaded and used it to fuel their offensive on the western side. Even the Russians knew it, so they used scorch earth instead of direct resistance and trapped them.

The simply fact was: most of Russian oil fields that Germany grabbed were destroyed so badly that the amount of oil produced had been very very low until the Germany was out of Soviet.

Had the US delayed its help to Britain by a couple of weeks, then Britain would have permanently evaporated. So it's a matter of timing.

No, Germany didn't have the necessary air/sea power to carry out Sea Lion plan. In the peak of British battle, British rolled out more fighters than they lost in the air while Hilter was only able to re-supply one third of his loss.

Had the Germans purchased oil reserves from Russia as part of the same mutual-non-aggression pact, it would have translated into a victory against Britain and the US would have no launchpad to amass troops to sail to Normandy. THEN they could have finished off Russia last. They opened the Russia front to get free oil and got stuck.

That would only be right if Russian was too stupid. Actually, the oil demand increased dramatically as Nazi got the whole europ now, the oil supply was reduced as the Royal navy block. The gap became larger and larger unless Russian started to export most of their oil production, in which case they wouldn't.
On the other hand, according to the military mobilization plan, both US and USSR would be fully prepared militarily for a war in 1943. So, Nazi already lose the war at the moment that UK refused to talk.

 

[Icarus]

People debating whether hitler was leftist or right wing need to stop --- when it was obvious he was a right wing fascist & socialist only in name. This thread is about something else please concentrate on that.

Try convincing the right-wing folks here. They believe Hitler was a socialist who wanted peace and equality. LOL.

 

[Deathstar]

Try convincing the right-wing folks here. They believe Hitler was a socialist who wanted peace and equality. LOL.

Self delusion ,no right winger thinks that Hitler wanted peace and equality blah blah. Churchill and Stalin both were worse than Hitler. Both killed more people....and Hitler was a socialist. His party's full name is socialists workers party. All those who say he wasnt a leftists are propagandists themselves trying to absolve the left from Nazi crimes. Nazi ideology was nothing but a commie dream(though he hated commies) , Germans rising against burgeoise Jews and anit Germaic people.
Next u might say Stalin and Mao were right wing too as both propelled on respective country's nationalism......
Crimes of Nazis , Commie Stalin , Commie Mao are on leftist' shoulders........

 

[HeinzGud]

so I am starting this thread to discuss what could be the possible reasons for Nazi Germany defeat in WW2. Members are free to give their opinion or points which they think cause the final downfall of the third Reich or sealed it's fate.

there could be no. of reasons --- which can be further elaborated. anyone can add more points if they want.

• invasion of Soviet Union.
• germany underestimation of Soviet reserve's.
• incompetency of Hitler & German higher command.
• not investing in navy.
• declaring war on US.
• operation Uranus( destruction of 6th army).
•Bagration ( destruction of army group center).
• lack of oil.

In my personal opinion it's was moving Guderian 2nd panzer south for encirclement of Kiev which sealed Wehrmacht fate as it delayed offensive on Moscow & it's captured before winter.

anyone watching this thread. You are free to add your opinion or points you think were responsible for German defeat.

IMHO. It was Hitler's "Festung" mentality plus disregard of his most capable officers.

 

[HeinzGud]

The fact that KKK clan was formed by members of democratic party(those defeated in the Civil War) is an oft buried knowledge to member of the radical left in US.

Coming to Hitler himself I personally believe that attacking Russia without finishing off UK was a big mistake. Obviously the Russian invasion was a race war for Hitler. The English were of Germanic origin so he was less inclined to attack them but in times of war you have to forget racial affiliation and other such nonsense. Finally not putting enough resources on the A bomb was his biggest folly. It could have atleast prevented a total collapse and unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany.

Soviet's were poised to invade Germany while it was busy fighting Western countries. I think Hitler did just right by preempting. As he once said, "If it was not in 1941, it should have been 1943. There is prevention of war with Soviet Union."

The only issues I have with Op. Babarossa is that Hitler's disregard to the Slavic people and his Festung mentality.

 

[Haldiram]

Franz Halder --- force retirement is sacking for me.

This point I agree Baku, Stalingrad was a big mistake --- there was enough oil from Romanian oil fields for german military & industry for time being --- concentrating forces from all three group would have made sure Moscow capture but it would have exposed german southern flank & still would not have guarantied german total victory as Stalin would have moved his base of operation further east.

Russians had spent big $ building a multi layered defense. If the enemy has spent so much, attacking that fortification is like taking the bait. If there was a Russian plan of invading Germany, it would have been easier to let them spend their $ and thwart the invasion than for the Germans to spend their own $ to run into Russian fortifications. Oil could have been managed from elsewhere.

The US would have never shared the kind of tech with Russia which it shared with Britain. Taking out Britain should have been a priority because that was the only country the US would trust with its technology and plans and use as a launch pad. Russia was a potential threat but a manageable one. Britain was a critical threat. Germany should have focused on replicating the success they got in France in Britain and consolidated their hold on Europe.

 

[Icarus]

Self delusion ,no right winger thinks that Hitler wanted peace and equality blah blah. Churchill and Stalin both were worse than Hitler. Both killed more people....and Hitler was a socialist. His party's full name is socialists workers party. All those who say he wasnt a leftists are propagandists themselves trying to absolve the left from Nazi crimes. Nazi ideology was nothing but a commie dream(though he hated commies) , Germans rising against burgeoise Jews and anit Germaic people.
Next u might say Stalin and Mao were right wing too as both propelled on respective country's nationalism......
Crimes of Nazis , Commie Stalin , Commie Mao are on leftist' shoulders........

Applying your logic, NCP full name is nationalist Congress party. So ncp is nationalist.

 

[Haldiram]

Applying your logic, NCP full name is nationalist Congress party. So ncp is nationalist.

Per your definition, would you say Bose's Azad Hind Fauz was a left wing army or a right wing army?

 

[asianobserve]

Russians had spent big $ building a multi layered defense. If the enemy has spent so much, attacking that fortification is like taking the bait. If there was a Russian plan of invading Germany, it would have been easier to let them spend their $ and thwart the invasion than for the Germans to spend their own $ to run into Russian fortifications. Oil could have been managed from elsewhere.

The US would have never shared the kind of tech with Russia which it shared with Britain. Taking out Britain should have been a priority because that was the only country the US would trust with its technology and plans and use as a launch pad. Russia was a potential threat but a manageable one. Britain was a critical threat. Germany should have focused on replicating the success they got in France in Britain and consolidated their hold on Europe.

Hitler did not ptrepare for the invasion of England. He did not have the kind of logistics to carry it out. More importantly he does not have the naval might that can neutralize the RN which is sure to counter any NAZI invading force. Even the NAZI air force was not enough to neutralize the RAF.

 

[asianobserve]

Also in 1941, Russia was not yet ready to invade Germany. Remember that just over a year earlier Soviet's ass was embarrasingly kicked around by the significantly smaller Finnish Army.

The speed alone at which the NAZIs overran Soviet resistance will tell you that the Soviets were not poised ready like a loaded gun to invade Germany. The Russian invasion was Hitler's folly.

 

[south block]

Russians had spent big $ building a multi layered defense. If the enemy has spent so much, attacking that fortification is like taking the bait. If there was a Russian plan of invading Germany, it would have been easier to let them spend their $ and thwart the invasion than for the Germans to spend their own $ to run into Russian fortifications. Oil could have been managed from elsewhere.

The US would have never shared the kind of tech with Russia which it shared with Britain. Taking out Britain should have been a priority because that was the only country the US would trust with its technology and plans and use as a launch pad. Russia was a potential threat but a manageable one. Britain was a critical threat. Germany should have focused on replicating the success they got in France in Britain and consolidated their hold on Europe.

Soviet build up from 1939 to 41 was huge from 1.8 million troops to more than 5 million, along with 8 million drafted into reserve's. Now whether Soviets were planning an attack or they were just being cautioned will remain a matter of debate --- as for Britain all German success was in its blitzkrieg....a ground offensive. While Kriegsmarine relied heavily on submarine which is sea denial ---- Germany didn't have a worthy surface fleet to challenge Britain & no way of transporting so many troops & equipment along English channel for successful operation without having air superiority first where Luftwaffe failed miserably.

 

[no smoking]

1. The weather. Cold and snow killed more Reich soldiers than the Soviets.
2. Stretched supply lines- USSR is humongous, German troops had not consolidated their hold in East to ensure reliable logistics.

That was the same issue. Everyone knew that power of Russia's winter, Germany logistic capacity just couldn't support the supplying of ammunition, food, fuel and winter coats in the same time.

3. Lack of Japanese cooperation. After the disaster that was Mongolia 1939, Japanese had no intention of engaging Soviet forces in the Far East. This allowed the Soviets to relocate bulk of these fighting divisions against Germany in the West. Had Japanese maintained some pressure, Soviets would have been forced to keep these troops along Amur, thereby fielding a depleted army on the West.

Through the whole WW2, Japanese had been always outnumbered and outgunned by the Soviet army in the far east. The Kantokuen in 1941 proved one thing: Japanese didn't have the transportation capability to support a large scale military invasion at all.

Op. Barbarossa was one of HItler's juvenile fantasies that none of his senior generals wanted or supported, but were forced to go along.

Barbarossa was a disaster but not a mistake. According to OKW calculation, in 1941 NAZI need 7.25m barrels to support their military activities and civilian life per month, they only got 5.35m by production and import. So, their oil stock would run out by early 1942. On the other hand, they couldn't import more from Soviet as they couldn't produce enough industrial goods to trade.

So, at the time, Hitler had 2 options: 1. Invading Soviet to get Russian oil; 2. Wait until his oil stock run out and then surrender. Which one will you choose?