Why Germany lost WW2?

[Compersion]

Attack on Pearl Harbor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_declaration_of_war_on_Japan

The day after the attack, Roosevelt delivered his famous Infamy Speech to a Joint Session of Congress, calling for a formal declaration of war on the Empire of Japan. Congress obliged his request less than an hour later. On December 11, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States, even though the Tripartite Pact did not require it. Congress issued a declaration of war against Germany and Italy later that same day. The UK actually declared war on Japan nine hours before the U.S. did, partially due to Japanese attacks on Malaya, Singapore and Hong Kong, and partially due to Winston Churchill's promise to declare war "within the hour" of a Japanese attack on the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_campaign_of_Alexander_the_Great

Indian campaign of Alexander the Great

(You don't fight ...)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

Only for information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_sign

.

As an insult

The use of the V sign ("the forks") as an insulting gesture, including the use of the upward swing at the elbow.

The insulting version of the gesture (with the palm inward U+1F594 REVERSED VICTORY HAND)[10] is often compared to the offensive gesture known as "the finger". The "two-fingered salute" (also "the forks" in Australia[11]) is commonly performed by flicking the V upwards from wrist or elbow. The V sign, when the palm is facing toward the person giving the sign, has long been an insulting gesture in England,[12] and later in the rest of the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, South Africa, India, Pakistan and New Zealand.[2] It is frequently used to signify defiance (especially to authority), contempt, or derision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_sign

The V sign is a hand gesture in which the index and middle fingers are raised and parted to make a V shape while the other fingers are clenched. It has various meanings, depending on the circumstances and how it is presented.

VICTORY !!

1970s+++++++

2019 December JAI HIND

 

[Haldiram]

Hitler did not prepare 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.

Your opinions are based on Allied white washing of history and post-rationalization than a genuine interest in finding facts.

All three of your points are hot air.

RE : Invasion of England was pretty much on the cards :

RE : Navy and Airforce had pretty much gotten the better of the British fleet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Atlantic

It was two evenly matched foes in all respects (morality (or lack, thereof), brutality, ideology, technology), everything except for strategy, which decided the outcome. With one side winning by a whisker and winner taking it all and rewriting the history to suit them. All 3 American aircraft carriers were at sea on the day of Pearl Harbor attack. Japanese intel miscalculated this part. Had they gotten these 3 ships, the US Navy would have been decapitated. Had Hitler gone for OP Sea Lion instead of OP Barbarossa, the outcome would be different. The loss was due to bad choices, not weak players. It could just as easily have been the opposite.

 

[south block]

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.

The one on offensive always have an advantage & element of surprise over the one who's in defensive --- yes Soviet were overrun but it had more to do with German superior tactics, better trained soldiers & equipment rather than so called Soviet underprepardness.
Wehrmacht in WW2 was a war machine with triumph in Poland & France before Barbarossa ---- moral was probably all time high.

 

[Haldiram]

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.

Those plans were in place.

The fact that it didn't occur is being used to post-rationalize that they did not have the wherewithal. It was planned, funded and trained for. At the last moment they chose to go east instead of west. That precisely was the mistake.

They were on the brink of pressing this into action when their generals misled him into OP Barbarossa.

Even winning Barbarossa would have led to the German army being stuck in guerrilla warfare inside Russia. This was supposed to be a low priority target which was mistakenly made a priority and they paid a price for it. On the contrary, even a partial victory against Churchill, leading to a British agreement to a truce would have been accepted by Hitler. Decapitating Britain denies the US the base to enter into the conflict.

Going for Russia instead of Britain cost them the war.

 

[south block]

Your opinions are based on Allied white washing of history and post-rationalization than a genuine interest in finding facts.

All three of your points are hot air.

RE : Invasion of England was pretty much on the cards :

View attachment 40612

RE : Navy and Airforce had pretty much gotten the better of the British fleet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Atlantic

View attachment 40611

You probably also believe that the Nazis were destined to lose because they were sending Jews to concentration camps; While the Allies were doing exactly the same, and even worse to their own subjects. The US had sent native Japanese to concentration camps. They were doing gruesome medical experiments on the blacks, the way the Nazis were doing on Jews.

It was two evenly matched foes in all respects (morality (or lack, thereof), brutality, ideology, technology), with one side winning by a whisker and winner taking it all and rewriting the history to suit them. Had Japan managed to conclusively take out the fleet at Pearl Harbor and had Hitler gone for OP Sea Lion instead of OP Barbarossa, you'd be a sales agent for German weapons instead of American weapons today.

there was no guarantee that sinking an aircraft carrier or few ships would have kept US out of war or axis victory ---- Pearl harbor was a massive failure but Japan had no choice other than to go to war due to embargo --- there were Only 4 aircraft carrier in Pacific & only 2 operational during pearl harbor --- both were out of harbor during attack....no way US would have been brought to it's knees by sinking of few ships ---- They were building more than 300 ships while Japan 30....It was just a matter of time.
there are reports that US already knew about the impending attack on pearl harbor & wanted it to be an excuse to enter war officially.

Those plans were in place.

The fact that it didn't occur is being used to post-rationalize that they did not have the wherewithal. It was planned, funded and trained for. At the last moment they chose to go east instead of west. That precisely was the mistake.

View attachment 40613

They were on the brink of pressing this into action when their generals misled him into OP Barbarossa.

View attachment 40614

Even winning Barbarossa would have led to the German army being stuck in guerrilla warfare inside Russia. This was supposed to be a low priority target which was mistakenly made a priority and they paid a price for it. On the contrary, even a partial victory against Churchill, leading to a British agreement to a truce would have been accepted by Hitler. Decapitating Britain denies the US the base to enter into the conflict.

Going for Russia instead of Britain cost them the war.

operation sea lion would have been a massive failure --- you should look into operation sea lion war game conducted in 74 --- British navy would have smashed Kriegsmarine to oblivion --- as for guerilla warfare... Wehrmacht is no Bundeswehr it would have gas lighted everyone who took arm against her :biggrin2:

 

[Haldiram]

there was no guarantee that sinking an aircraft carrier or few ships would have kept US out of war or axis victory ---- Pearl harbor was a massive failure but Japan had no choice other than to go to war due to embargo --- there were Only 4 aircraft carrier in Pacific & only 2 operational during pearl harbor --- both were out of harbor during attack....no way US would have been brought to it's knees by sinking of few ships ---- They were building more than 300 ships while Japan 30....It was just a matter of time.
there are reports that US already knew about the impending attack on pearl harbor & wanted it to be an excuse to enter war officially.

operation sea lion would have been a massive failure --- you should look into operation sea lion war game conducted in 74 --- British navy would have smashed Kriegsmarine to oblivion --- as for guerilla warfare... Wehrmacht is no Bundeswehr it would have gas lighted everyone who took arm against her :biggrin2:

IF the invasion of Russia was unviable and the invasion of Britain was also unviable then what should Hitler have done instead?

 

[south block]

What is the final conclusion for the reason of German loss?

Weak allies
Invasion of Russia
and...?

In my opinion... blunder during operation Barbarossa of moving center group elements south for encirclement of Kiev --- moving AG south to Caucasus when target should have been Moscow & than swing south later --- not going to full war economy until 1943... resources limitations to fight on two front simultaneously specially US & declaring war on US itself.

 

[asianobserve]

Your opinions are based on Allied white washing of history and post-rationalization than a genuine interest in finding facts.

All three of your points are hot air.

RE : Invasion of England was pretty much on the cards :

View attachment 40612

RE : Navy and Airforce had pretty much gotten the better of the British fleet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Atlantic

View attachment 40611


It was two evenly matched foes in all respects (morality (or lack, thereof), brutality, ideology, technology), everything except for strategy, which decided the outcome. With one side winning by a whisker and winner taking it all and rewriting the history to suit them. All 3 American aircraft carriers were at sea on the day of Pearl Harbor attack. Japanese intel miscalculated this part. Had they gotten these 3 ships, the US Navy would have been decapitated. Had Hitler gone for OP Sea Lion instead of OP Barbarossa, the outcome would be different. The loss was due to bad choices, not weak players. It could just as easily have been the opposite.

Better recheck history. Hitler thought that after the defeat of France that Britain will sue for peace. The threat of invasion was initially a ruse to compel Churchill to realize that Hitler was serious about invading Britain if no peace deal was agreed. But the bulldog did not play by Hitler's bluff. So Hitler had no choice but to cobble up a desperate effort to cross the channel using converted canal boats as landing crafts!

Unfortunately for Hitler, even his cobbled up invasion force was doomed since Goering could not decisively defeat the RAF.

So the already half-hearted invasion pkan was abandoned. Instead, Hitler opened up the Eastern front against Russia, an even bigger blunder.

Btw, I did mention about Japan. What's with that?

 

[asianobserve]

IF the invasion of Russia was unviable and the invasion of Britain was also unviable then what should Hitler have done instead?

Keep his territories and dig in. Build up his military.

 

[asianobserve]

The one on offensive always have an advantage & element of surprise over the one who's in defensive --- yes Soviet were overrun but it had more to do with German superior tactics, better trained soldiers & equipment rather than so called Soviet underprepardness.
Wehrmacht in WW2 was a war machine with triumph in Poland & France before Barbarossa ---- moral was probably all time high.

The Wehrmacht morale was literally "high" on Pervitin (ctystal meth) for the whole war....

 

[south block]

Better recheck history. Hitler thought that after the defeat of France that Britain will sue for peace. The threat of invasion was initially a ruse to compel Churchill to realize that Hitler was serious about invading Britain if no peace deal was agreed. But the bulldog did not play by Hitler's bluff. So Hitler had no choice but to cobble up a desperate effort to cross the channel using converted canal boats as landing crafts!

Unfortunately for Hitler, even his cobbled up invasion force was doomed sink Goering could not decisively defeat the RAF.

So the already half-hearted invasion pkan was abandoned. Instead, Hitler opened up the Eastern front against Russia, an even bigger blunder.

Btw, I did mention about Japan. What's with that?

Hitler had no option other than to open eastern front --- his supply lines in sea have been chocked & he was running out of oil ---- Soviet Union was the Only country with enough resources to keep German war machine going. Romanian oil production was enough only for quick offensive & not for long drawn out war which eastern front turned into due to Germany own blunder during Barbarossa.
Continuous aerial bombardment on Romanian fields by allied forces & Rommel failure to take Suez didn't help either.

 

[south block]

there is a great video on role of oil as a key factor for German invasion of Soviet Union do check it out.

 

[asianobserve]

Hitler had no option other than to open eastern front --- his supply lines in sea have been chocked & he was running out of oil ---- Soviet Union was the Only country with enough resources to keep German war machine going. Romanian oil production was enough only for quick offensive & not long drawn out war which eastern front turned into due to Germany own blunder during Barbarossa.
Continuous aerial bombardment on Romanian fields by allied forced & Rommel failure to take Suez didn't help either.

The Germans had access to Romanian oil. They could have relied on it for a while to further strengthen its military strength. Or Hitler could have concentrated his forces on Baku and relied on aerial bombings of Russian industries elsewhere.

 

[south block]

The Germans had access to Romanian oil. They could have relied on it for a while to further strengthen its military strength.

Check the video I posted. It goes into detail how serious the situation was for Axis.

 

[spikey360]

I see a lot of yank and tommy fanboys.

 

[Armand2REP]

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).

Where exactly would the Allies bomb the oil fields from? Hitler would be sitting in Moscow with the Luftwaffe destroying every Soviet airfield within range. With the loss of the capital and the major transport/logistics hub of the nation, Stalin would have been rolled back East of the Urals. Could he retake the European half of the CCCP being pushed back that far? I doubt it. The Japanese said if Hitler ever got that far they would declare war and push the advantage. If Hitler and Tojo met in Siberia taking Stalin out of the war, the Allies would have sued for peace.

 

[asianobserve]

Where exactly would the Allies bomb the oil fields from? Hitler would be sitting in Moscow with the Luftwaffe destroying every Soviet airfield within range. With the loss of the capital and the major transport/logistics hub of the nation, Stalin would have been rolled back East of the Urals. Could he retake the European half of the CCCP being pushed back that far? I doubt it. The Japanese said if Hitler ever got that far they would declare war and push the advantage. If Hitler and Tojo met in Siberia taking Stalin out of the war, the Allies would have sued for peace.

Lancaster, B-17s, B-24 and even B-25s can bomb Soviet oilfields in Baku from Iran. By September 1941 Iran was already completely in Soviet and British hands.

 

[HeinzGud]

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.

He could have used his U boat fleet. U boats were deadly effective in the North sea during the first phase of the Atlantic war. If the RAF was neutralized over English Channel. RN would have no option but keep away their heavy units from both the North Sea and the English Channel. The smaller destroyers and cruisers could have being picked out by Stukas.

 

[HeinzGud]

Lancaster, B-17s, B-24 and even B-25s can bomb Soviet oilfields in Baku from Iran. By September 1941 Iran was already completely in Soviet and British hands.

What if Hitler drove directly to Iran. I think British feared exactly that.

 

[Armand2REP]

Lancaster, B-17s, B-24 and even B-25s can bomb Soviet oilfields in Baku from Iran. By September 1941 Iran was already completely in Soviet and British hands.

That was long before the British had cracked Enigma, Rommel was moving across North Africa and the German and Italians had air superiority over the Mediterranean. It is not likely they would get anything substantial over there at that time. German engineers wouldn't take long to get oil pumping, back then it was bubbling out of the ground.