Why Germany lost WW2?

[Willy3]

I remember reading that one of these chad Aryan ships got btfo by some obsolete Anglo plane carrying a single bomb, while it was hiding in some part of the Norwegian coast.

It was his sister ship Tirpits which sunk in the coast of Norway.

 

[Maharaj samudragupt]

It was his sister ship Tirpits

Nien Lancaster sank tripitz , it was of RAF .
And it carried a bomb called the grand slam bomb.
Meanwhile , swordfish was a torpedo bomber of the senior service aka royal navy , which sank the Bismarck by launching torpedoes at it.

 

[KurtisBrian]

Hello everyone. First time poster. Joined PDF a couple mouths ago but they don't like my comments. They banned me again. Will see if I can follow the rules used by your forum and not get banned.

my point
- once the conflict escalated into WW2, Germany had no chance of victory. Strategy made no difference.

Germany was able to defeat small, lone and less prepared opponents (more like Viking raiders attacking unprepared villagers). As the size, scale and length of the conflict grew allies grew more powerful (converting consumer industry into war industry) and thus Germany proportionally weaker.
Technology was close to parity. Resources (including men) and productive capacity of the allies was far greater.

 

[KurtisBrian]

Are you an indian , sir ?

no I am not Indian. I am Canadian. Ancestry is England, Scotland and a little German (Bavarian he would say).

thank you

 

[Maharaj samudragupt]

Hello everyone. First time poster. Joined PDF a couple mouths ago but they don't like my comments. They banned me again. Will see if I can follow the rules used by your forum and not get banned.

my point
- once the conflict escalated into WW2, Germany had no chance of victory. Strategy made no difference.

Germany was able to defeat small, lone and less prepared opponents (more like Viking raiders attacking unprepared villagers). As the size, scale and length of the conflict grew allies grew more powerful (converting consumer industry into war industry) and thus Germany proportionally weaker.
Technology was close to parity. Resources (including men) and productive capacity of the allies was far greater.

Enjoy the forum , sir .
We would love to see you insights on various issues .

 

[DerBronzeLord]

Hello everyone. First time poster. Joined PDF a couple mouths ago but they don't like my comments. They banned me again. Will see if I can follow the rules used by your forum and not get banned.

my point
- once the conflict escalated into WW2, Germany had no chance of victory. Strategy made no difference.

Germany was able to defeat small, lone and less prepared opponents (more like Viking raiders attacking unprepared villagers). As the size, scale and length of the conflict grew allies grew more powerful (converting consumer industry into war industry) and thus Germany proportionally weaker.
Technology was close to parity. Resources (including men) and productive capacity of the allies was far greater.

While I do agree that the Allies won primarily due to their larger production capability (I would strongly suggest you to read about the Soviets moving their factories from the Ukraine to the Urals, a magnificent feat for that time), I think that the Germans lost primarily due to their geopolitical problems, where they were fighting a two-front war, practically on their own, while the Allies could easily fight on their own fronts, and had several highly powerful partners.

Germany could have won, if they had first defeated the Brits in the Battle of Britain. The Germans and the Japanese during Pearl Harbour made a similar mistake, where they attacked several unimportant targets, for absolutely no reason whatsoever. The Germans attacked British cities, under Hitler's (kind of) delusional hopes that Britain and Germany could "March together" against the Americans. He intended to terrorise British cities and bomb them into submission, whereas in reality, a more useful target would have been the RAF airfields.

Another mistake which Germany made was that they didn't plan their Soviet invasions through, especially their logistics. An example of this was with the railway gauges, due to which, the tanks of transporting materiel became highly difficult, especially when the Russian winter causes roads in the Central Swamps and Belarus to become a mixture of mud and snow. Along with the logistics, I don't think the Germans planned the Soviet War through. Even if they HAD captured Moscow, it wouldn't have really caused the Soviets to collapse, as they could have easily moved their capital elsewhere, quite possibly to Kazan or Omsk. Apart from a hit on morale, and a few logistical problems(check out the road maps from Russia 1942, Moscow is kind of central, but only in the regions which were already occupied by the Germans), the Soviets wouldn't have collapsed. The German-Soviet war which would have ensued, would probably been akin to the Afghan War for the US, only much, much worse, as they would face a highly determined population, a Soviet nation receiving aid from the US, and several problems in their rear lines.

The nail in the coffin though, was the declaration of war after Pearl Harbour. Entirely unnecessary, and just added another enemy, which was located in a far-flung continent, and was an industrial behemoth.

There were several other mistakes which Adolf made, the biggest being, in my opinion:

1. Not taking Malta, and not providing enough aid to Rommel to push towards Egypt, or atleast solve the problem at Tobruk.

2. Lack of interoperability with the Japanese, which could have helped the Japanese take India, which would have depleted British resources, prevented the US from using airbases in North East India to attack the Japanese, and draw more US forces and attention into Asia.

3. Not fully utilising allies. A bit vague, yes, but an example would be the Finland, and how they just stopped their ops in Russia after retaking all their positions lost in the Winter War.


There is an absolutely brilliant YouTube channel, WW2 week by week, which covers the happenings of the War on a weekly basis. Would HIGHLY suggest watching it for everyone.

 

[Knowitall]

While I do agree that the Allies won primarily due to their larger production capability (I would strongly suggest you to read about the Soviets moving their factories from the Ukraine to the Urals, a magnificent feat for that time), I think that the Germans lost primarily due to their geopolitical problems, where they were fighting a two-front war, practically on their own, while the Allies could easily fight on their own fronts, and had several highly powerful partners.

Germany could have won, if they had first defeated the Brits in the Battle of Britain. The Germans and the Japanese during Pearl Harbour made a similar mistake, where they attacked several unimportant targets, for absolutely no reason whatsoever. The Germans attacked British cities, under Hitler's (kind of) delusional hopes that Britain and Germany could "March together" against the Americans. He intended to terrorise British cities and bomb them into submission, whereas in reality, a more useful target would have been the RAF airfields.

Another mistake which Germany made was that they didn't plan their Soviet invasions through, especially their logistics. An example of this was with the railway gauges, due to which, the tanks of transporting materiel became highly difficult, especially when the Russian winter causes roads in the Central Swamps and Belarus to become a mixture of mud and snow. Along with the logistics, I don't think the Germans planned the Soviet War through. Even if they HAD captured Moscow, it wouldn't have really caused the Soviets to collapse, as they could have easily moved their capital elsewhere, quite possibly to Kazan or Omsk. Apart from a hit on morale, and a few logistical problems(check out the road maps from Russia 1942, Moscow is kind of central, but only in the regions which were already occupied by the Germans), the Soviets wouldn't have collapsed. The German-Soviet war which would have ensued, would probably been akin to the Afghan War for the US, only much, much worse, as they would face a highly determined population, a Soviet nation receiving aid from the US, and several problems in their rear lines.

The nail in the coffin though, was the declaration of war after Pearl Harbour. Entirely unnecessary, and just added another enemy, which was located in a far-flung continent, and was an industrial behemoth.

There were several other mistakes which Adolf made, the biggest being, in my opinion:

1. Not taking Malta, and not providing enough aid to Rommel to push towards Egypt, or atleast solve the problem at Tobruk.

2. Lack of interoperability with the Japanese, which could have helped the Japanese take India, which would have depleted British resources, prevented the US from using airbases in North East India to attack the Japanese, and draw more US forces and attention into Asia.

3. Not fully utilising allies. A bit vague, yes, but an example would be the Finland, and how they just stopped their ops in Russia after retaking all their positions lost in the Winter War.


There is an absolutely brilliant YouTube channel, WW2 week by week, which covers the happenings of the War on a weekly basis. Would HIGHLY suggest watching it for everyone.

IMO in my opinion germany had a better chance of winning ww1 than ww2.

 

[Knowitall]

While I do agree that the Allies won primarily due to their larger production capability (I would strongly suggest you to read about the Soviets moving their factories from the Ukraine to the Urals, a magnificent feat for that time), I think that the Germans lost primarily due to their geopolitical problems, where they were fighting a two-front war, practically on their own, while the Allies could easily fight on their own fronts, and had several highly powerful partners.

Germany could have won, if they had first defeated the Brits in the Battle of Britain. The Germans and the Japanese during Pearl Harbour made a similar mistake, where they attacked several unimportant targets, for absolutely no reason whatsoever. The Germans attacked British cities, under Hitler's (kind of) delusional hopes that Britain and Germany could "March together" against the Americans. He intended to terrorise British cities and bomb them into submission, whereas in reality, a more useful target would have been the RAF airfields.

Another mistake which Germany made was that they didn't plan their Soviet invasions through, especially their logistics. An example of this was with the railway gauges, due to which, the tanks of transporting materiel became highly difficult, especially when the Russian winter causes roads in the Central Swamps and Belarus to become a mixture of mud and snow. Along with the logistics, I don't think the Germans planned the Soviet War through. Even if they HAD captured Moscow, it wouldn't have really caused the Soviets to collapse, as they could have easily moved their capital elsewhere, quite possibly to Kazan or Omsk. Apart from a hit on morale, and a few logistical problems(check out the road maps from Russia 1942, Moscow is kind of central, but only in the regions which were already occupied by the Germans), the Soviets wouldn't have collapsed. The German-Soviet war which would have ensued, would probably been akin to the Afghan War for the US, only much, much worse, as they would face a highly determined population, a Soviet nation receiving aid from the US, and several problems in their rear lines.

The nail in the coffin though, was the declaration of war after Pearl Harbour. Entirely unnecessary, and just added another enemy, which was located in a far-flung continent, and was an industrial behemoth.

There were several other mistakes which Adolf made, the biggest being, in my opinion:

1. Not taking Malta, and not providing enough aid to Rommel to push towards Egypt, or atleast solve the problem at Tobruk.

2. Lack of interoperability with the Japanese, which could have helped the Japanese take India, which would have depleted British resources, prevented the US from using airbases in North East India to attack the Japanese, and draw more US forces and attention into Asia.

3. Not fully utilising allies. A bit vague, yes, but an example would be the Finland, and how they just stopped their ops in Russia after retaking all their positions lost in the Winter War.


There is an absolutely brilliant YouTube channel, WW2 week by week, which covers the happenings of the War on a weekly basis. Would HIGHLY suggest watching it for everyone.

Point 3 cannot be stressed enough from not providing ToT to romania for jets and denying italy plane engines to not helping with modernization germany in ww2 just continued to shit on its allies making things harder for themselves.

 

[Knowitall]

Germany in ww1 had actually had a real good chance of winning from reaching the outskirts of paris to absolutely crushing the Russian empire.
It was a few errors at critical moments that denied them their victory.

 

[Maharaj samudragupt]

IMO in my opinion germany had a better chance of winning ww1 than ww2.

Ja , indeed kamreden.
The fresh blud of Prussian kriegsmachine was able to propel german soldiers.
They had greater resources but not greater than the MIGHTY BRITISH EMPIRE .
Indians , Canadians , australian, kiwis all fought along side english Tommies.
German empire had a tiny colony of Tanganyika , but britain by twist of fate , controlled a whole different civilisation which older than britain , has its own history wars and battles in front of which medieval european battles look cosplay .

 

[Maharaj samudragupt]

Enjoy the forum , sir .
We would love to see you insights on various issues .View attachment 78300

This bird is himalay monal .
It's a male , females look ugly in this species.

 

[KurtisBrian]

I think that the Germans lost primarily due to their geopolitical problems, where they were fighting a two-front war, practically on their own, while the Allies could easily fight on their own fronts, and had several highly powerful partners.

hello,

I believe, you are thinking like a good field commander. You are trying to find a strategy to win the individual battles your command is presented with. Holding to the vital belief, which each commander and soldier must have, that an individual battle will change out come of the war. Try changing your thinking from field commander to National leader. You must set your nations objective and your army will carry it out. Once WW2 began Germany's national objective became, conquer and hold all of Europe, the UK, North Africa and probably also the Americas. No matter how good, how could your army possibly do that?
Before WW2 began German objectives were to pick off the weak, peaceful and unprepared. That is easy for anyone. It is Viking raider thinking.

Was it possible for Hitler to not have ending up at war with the UK, France, USA and Russia? Perhaps that would have changed things.

 

[KurtisBrian]

This bird is himalay monal .
It's a male , females look ugly in this species.

beautiful bird. The Himalayan Monal male must not find his female unattractive. If he did the species would quickly die out.

 

[Tactical Doge]

beautiful bird. The Himalayan Monal male must not find his female unattractive. If he did the species would quickly die out.

It's numbers are actually quite good
It's in the category of "Least Concern - Avians"

 

[Willy3]

Germany in ww1 had actually had a real good chance of winning from reaching the outskirts of paris to absolutely crushing the Russian empire.
It was a few errors at critical moments that denied them their victory.

I think even if they won decisively against paris, it will be still impossible to win the war.

Germany can very much force France to surrender in late 1915 itself when it's well inside France, but it's weak navy unable to counter Britishers...

With almost infinite colonial man power they tire imperial Germany out..

In case Kaisers army capture Paris, they will still not have answers for British navy..and In the end it will have similar ending

 

[Willy3]

Apart from many reason , I personally what believe cost Germany WW2 is baggage of Italy.

For Italy it have to fought war in Balkan and Africa which streched and tire out his army.

With Mussolini taking Franco like step and kept itself as friendly-neutral country during WW2, Germans would be in far stronger position.

 

[no smoking]

Was it possible for Hitler to not have ending up at war with the UK, France, USA and Russia? Perhaps that would have changed things.

Hitler was not a fool let alone the whole German elite class. They simply didn't have other option but war.
In early 20th century, the whole world market was either in UK/France/USA's colonies(India, South East Asia, Africa), or semi-colonies under their massive influence (China, Latin America). The only exemption was Soviet Union which was their natural No.1 enemy.
As a country heavily relying on international trade, Germany economy was quite vulnerable to these countries economic policies. Every time when the crisis came, these countries would raise their tariffs and close their colonial markets to their competitors (No 1 - German), threw Germany economy under the bus just as what they did in 1929.
So, German needs to break this colonial system and turns these colonies to open markets. But we all know there is no way can persuade UK/France to give up their colonies but war.
By the way, Hitler's economic policy was built based on borrowing and confiscated Jews' treasures. The matter of facts was, the high time of payback was coming from 1938 while there was much Jews' money left to confiscate inside German.

 

[KurtisBrian]

Hitler was not a fool let alone the whole German elite class. They simply didn't have other option but war.
In early 20th century, the whole world market was either in UK/France/USA's colonies(India, South East Asia, Africa), or semi-colonies under their massive influence (China, Latin America). The only exemption was Soviet Union which was their natural No.1 enemy.
As a country heavily relying on international trade, Germany economy was quite vulnerable to these countries economic policies. Every time when the crisis came, these countries would raise their tariffs and close their colonial markets to their competitors (No 1 - German), threw Germany economy under the bus just as what they did in 1929.
So, German needs to break this colonial system and turns these colonies to open markets. But we all know there is no way can persuade UK/France to give up their colonies but war.
By the way, Hitler's economic policy was built based on borrowing and confiscated Jews' treasures. The matter of facts was, the high time of payback was coming from 1938 while there was much Jews' money left to confiscate inside German.

okay, I am not arguing the causes or the strategies. I am arguing the objective and saying the objective was impossible to achieve so victory was impossible.

 

[Compersion]

The (attempted) invasion of the Soviet Union.

Why, what and how that is a wonder - the Soviet Union and Germany had good relations apparently till the invasion of Soviet Union.

 

[Knowitall]

The (attempted) invasion of the Soviet Union.

Why, what and how that is a wonder - the Soviet Union and Germany had good relations apparently till the invasion of Soviet Union.

Good relations on paper only Soviet Union was posed to attack Germany first if they hadn't made the first move anyways.