Why Germany lost WW2?

[omaebakabaka]

Here is the most important factor in the defeat of Germany and Axis powers in WW2:

View attachment 97005
View attachment 97006

Defeat is a given when one goes on a megalomaniac unlimited desire to conquer everyone and everything....this generally creates overstretching ones abilities and eventually means to control, equip and cater leading to demoralizing. A persistent enemy will eventually defeat just like Afghans vs USA and so on. Germans were much better fighting force than most anyone but Hitler was an idiot just like Trump ignoring understanding of system and its limitations and most importantly time dimension

 

[asianobserve]

Defeat is a given when one goes on a megalomaniac unlimited desire to conquer everyone and everything....this generally creates overstretching ones abilities and eventually means to control, equip and cater leading to demoralizing. A persistent enemy will eventually defeat just like Afghans vs USA and so on. Germans were much better fighting force than most anyone but Hitler was an idiot just like Trump ignoring understanding of system and its limitations and most importantly time dimension

If megalomaniac Hitler had USA's GDP in WW2 then the result of the war would certainly be different, even if he ended up alienating most countries in Europe.

Imagine if Hitler was able to produce 3x Panzer IVs or 2x Panthers and Tigers, or 3x Me 262 and induct them earlier? How about 2x submarines? Or worse he was able to finance an atomic bomb?

 

[omaebakabaka]

If megalomaniac Hitler had USA's GDP in WW2 then the result of the war would certainly be different, even if he ended up alienating most countries in Europe.

Imagine if Hitler was able to produce 3x Panzer IVs or 2x Panthers and Tigers, or 3x Me 262 and induct them earlier? How about 2x submarines? Or worse he was able to finance an atomic bomb?

Even the US with its GDP is unable to dominate world, there will be eventual resistance....its just how naturally things work over time. Internal entropy is a given in empires and history proves it time and again especially those with military style ones

 

[no smoking]

If megalomaniac Hitler had USA's GDP in WW2 then the result of the war would certainly be different, even if he ended up alienating most countries in Europe.

If Germany had USA's GDP in WW2? Then she needs USA's oil production in WW2 (more than 60% of whole world), USA's food production in WW2 (they literally feed half world armies), etc, etc.

With all these in hand, plus locating in Europe, Hitler didn't need the war at all.

Imagine if Hitler was able to produce 3x Panzer IVs or 2x Panthers and Tigers, or 3x Me 262 and induct them earlier? How about 2x submarines? Or worse he was able to finance an atomic bomb?

Oil, oil, oil!
Simply they didn't have enough fuel to run these machines.

 

[asianobserve]

Even the US with its GDP is unable to dominate world, there will be eventual resistance....its just how naturally things work over time. Internal entropy is a given in empires and history proves it time and again especially those with military style ones

It's simple, the combatant that has more money produces more weapons, hires, trains and sustains more soldiers, able to mount more campaigns and is able to replace losses. In other words, in a war of attrition like WW2 deep pocket wins.

 

[asianobserve]

If Germany had USA's GDP in WW2? Then she needs USA's oil production in WW2 (more than 60% of whole world), USA's food production in WW2 (they literally feed half world armies), etc, etc.

With all these in hand, plus locating in Europe, Hitler didn't need the war at all.



Oil, oil, oil!
Simply they didn't have enough fuel to run these machines.

With bigger GDP amd thus more weapons, troops, reserves, Hitler could have easily captured the oil fields in Eastern Europe from the Soviets and perhaps in the ME from the British.

 

[omaebakabaka]

It's simple, the combatant that has more money produces more weapons, hires, trains and sustains more soldiers, able to mount more campaigns and is able to replace losses. In other words, in a war of attrition like WW2 deep pocket wins.

US did not win against Afghanistan or Vietnam with deep pockets and same with Uk and Germany.....will be same with China....I don't really know what you are talking, history is very clear and present is clear too

 

[tommy]

After reading about world wars for long time, I have come to the conclusion that Germany would have lost no matter what. Maybe a different approach would have delayed the loss, but it was evident as Germany itself was surrounded by other countries which had their own consciousness as separate nation. This is true as @omaebakabaka says for any other empire which expands militarily against a foe who have a consciousness as a separate nation. This may not be true against tribal societies though, as they tend to adapt to the dominant culture or reverse in case of Mongols who adopted the culture of conquered kingdoms which was eventually responsible for their downfall.

 

[asianobserve]

US did not win against Afghanistan or Vietnam with deep pockets and same with Uk and Germany.....will be same with China....I don't really know what you are talking, history is very clear and present is clear too

We are talking about WW2, a conventional war. Vietnam and Afghanistan are unconventional wars fought by irregular/guerilla forces against conventional forces.

The size and health of your economy is decisive in conventional wars.

 

[asianobserve]

Besides, in Vietnam the USSR was behind the North, and the 60's was the height of the Soviet economy.

 

[DerBronzeLord]

If Germany had USA's GDP in WW2? Then she needs USA's oil production in WW2 (more than 60% of whole world), USA's food production in WW2 (they literally feed half world armies), etc, etc.

With all these in hand, plus locating in Europe, Hitler didn't need the war at all.



Oil, oil, oil!
Simply they didn't have enough fuel to run these machines.

Add to this the fact that the US had the factories and the shipyards. They were churning out a bomber every hour, and accounted for almost 60% of the global shipbuilding capacity at the time.

 

[tommy]

The method in which someone fights against the aggressor is upto him. Why do you think the enemy will fight to your strength. The same is the case of US in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Just accept. They should have anticipated it. War is a war no matter how its fought.

 

[ketaki]

Germany tried to bite larger pie than it can swallow...

should have waited more years before attacking USSR

 

[asianobserve]

Germany tried to bite larger pie than it can swallow...

should have waited more years before attacking USSR

To be cynical, Hitler should not have directly invaded the USSR and instead consolidated its gains in Western Europe, Poland, parts of Eastern Europe and Baltic states. Hitler should have maintained his pact with Stalin and agreed to formalize their respective spheres if influence.

Having eleminated USSR as a foe, Hitler with Italy should have focused on eleminating Great Britain from the Middle East with an eye of 1) cutting off Britain from India and 2) wrestling control of Iranian oil fields. By devoting most of his resources to Rommel, Hitler could have defeated UK, US and Free French forces in East Africa. After liquidating the Western allies in Africa and the ME, Hitler can easily negotiate with Britain and the US into a favorable peace treaty.

Afterwards, Hitler can start anti-Communist destabilization moves in USSR. Once Stalin has been sufficiently weakened then Hitler can launch Barbarossa sometime in 1944-45.

 

[tommy]

Then war would have gone till 1948 and Hitler would still have lost.

 

[omaebakabaka]

We are talking about WW2, a conventional war. Vietnam and Afghanistan are unconventional wars fought by irregular/guerilla forces against conventional forces.

The size and health of your economy is decisive in conventional wars.

This view proves you have no idea what you are talking....one does not go into war with senseless expectations. Only thing that matters is having correct objectives, anticipation and resolve to achieve the military objectives....these are not gender wars....things will be different but the result will be same once the females and unqualified lord over the forces and act with utopia and pretend ideology vs knowledge of military science and psychology

 

[asianobserve]

This view proves you have no idea what you are talking....one does not go into war with senseless expectations. Only thing that matters is having correct objectives, anticipation and resolve to achieve the military objectives....these are not gender wars....things will be different but the result will be same once the females and unqualified lord over the forces and act with utopia and pretend ideology vs knowledge of military science and psychology

So tell me genius, do you think Hitler would have lost to Stalin if Hitler had at least 50% more materiele and men?

 

[omaebakabaka]

So tell me genius, do you think Hitler would have lost to Stalin if Hitler had at least 50% more materiele and men?

You don't make sense, what if's are useless. There are many instances where less powerful defeated mighty ones. How old are you?

 

[asianobserve]

You don't make sense, what if's are useless. There are many instances where less powerful defeated mighty ones. How old are you?

You're operating on exceptions - not a good position. Romantics tend to over inflate the instances of wars won by smaller/poorer sides. The overwhelming statistics in warfare however throughout history is that the winner ultimately is the side that can bring more resources to bear against the other side.

In WW2 the Soviets was able to defeat the Nazis because Stalin had more tanks, more men, as in fact the USSR was only surpassed by the US in industrial production in WW2, and the Americans and Brits keep on resupplying him.

 

[omaebakabaka]

You're operating on exceptions - not a good position. Romantics tend to over inflate the instances of wars won by smaller/poorer sides. The overwhelming statistics in warfare however throughout history is that the winner ultimately is the side that can bring more resources to bear against the other side.

In WW2 the Soviets was able to defeat the Nazis because Stalin had more tanks, more men, and the Americans and Brits keep on resupplying him. If Stalin was left by himself, the Eastern front, as in fact WW2, might have ended differently.

Napolean, Hitler were defeated and even Alexander barely made it to India and did not even enter main land India....empires get stretched just like US, Germany, Ottoman, UK, French and Japan....time is on locals side as long as they have determination and some level of technology to counter bigger and better enemy. You are the one that is putting out what if's when the same powers were defeated time and again....its called fighting asymmetrically. And no USSR won with determination and had enough resource base, supplies from US/UK were not the determining factor, its over blown out of proportion and history is maligned by west as always in every incident just like now