Why Germany lost WW2?

[asianobserve]

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

Economic/industrial might is the most decisive factor in wars. "Determination" or whatever you would like to call it is the exception.

And in the topic of this thread, Germany's defeat in WW2, the economic might of the allies simply exhausted German tactical military prowess.

 

[tommy]

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

That's not Stalin's problem that he has more resources. This should have been factored in by Germans before operation Barbarossa. Hitler was just relying on Soviets to break like in world war 1. He had no idea about how to maintain the occupied territory.

 

[asianobserve]

That's not Stalin's problem that he has more resources. This should have been factored in by Germans before operation Barbarossa. Hitler was just relying on Soviets to break like in world war 1. He had no idea about how to maintain the occupied territory.

Hitler was aiming to get Soviet natural resources. But he overstimated his resources and understimated the Soviets and the allies.

 

[omaebakabaka]

Economic/industrial might is the most decisive factor in wars. "Determination" or whatever you would like to call it is the exception.

And in the topic of this thread, Germany's defeat in WW2, the economic might of the allies simply exhausted German tactical military prowess.

lol, most of west packed except the UK and Uk would have been a toast if Hitler did not make the mistake of going against USSR and he did that as he underestimated them and went against some of his best generals advice and US was too far, so more lucky than anything else....I have no idea what your point is.....you can have all tanks and industrial might and can still let your country runover by illegals and potential terrorists, occupation comes in many dimensions and winning is relative.

 

[asianobserve]

lol, most of west packed except the UK and Uk would have been a toast if Hitler did not make the mistake of going against USSR and he did that as he underestimated them and went against some of his best generals advice and US was too far, so more lucky than anything else....I have no idea what your point is.....you can have all tanks and industrial might and can still let your country runover by illegals and potential terrorists, occupation comes in many dimensions and winning is relative.

Hitler won against less powerful countries. France in 1940 was simply no match against Germany.

You're a hopeless ideologue. All your analysis of events are colored by "illegals."

 

[no smoking]

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

In Afghanistan, they were not fighting a country, but hundreds of insurgent groups, defeating one doesn't force the rest to quit the war;
In Vietnam, they were not facing Vietnamese only.

 

[no smoking]

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.

From 1939, Royal navy already blocked all the foreign raw material supplies to mainland Europe: especially food and oil. Hitler's reserve of these two were quickly dropping. USSR was his only hope, otherwise German would collapse within 2 years.

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.

No way!
Germany logistic couldn't handle Rommel's Afrika korps (<300,000 men), what makes you believe they can supply a much bigger army in much longer distance?

PS: Russians' mobilization already started, they would get ready in 1943. What would happen when they were ready and hilter's main forces trapped in remote territory?

 

[omaebakabaka]

Hitler won against less powerful countries. France in 1940 was simply no match against Germany.

You're a hopeless ideologue. All your analysis of events are colored by "illegals."

Lol, only a dimwit argues the evident results.

 

[omaebakabaka]

In Afghanistan, they were not fighting a country, but hundreds of insurgent groups, defeating one doesn't force the rest to quit the war;
In Vietnam, they were not facing Vietnamese only.

Ya, next time you define what is winning and losing....keep smoking bat gas

 

[Villager]

Hitler was aiming to get Soviet natural resources. But he overstimated his resources and understimated the Soviets and the allies.

Speaking of allies, a very and who knows, maybe the most crucial point was the war between Soviets and Japanese resulting in Neutrality pact that the Japanese kept while Soviets unilaterally denounced at the right time. Had the Japanese remained committed to the Tripartite Act when Germans invaded Soviets betraying Soviet-Japanese Neutrality pact 1941, the Soviet Union might have reached it's end. The Germans might very well have emerged victorious controlling an extremely large territory. I feel like Germans still secretly wish they had won and may strike at the right opportunity. Hitler probably didn't overestimate but miscalculated not knowing how his ally would act. Battles of Khalkhin Gol made the ultimate difference in the war.

 

[asianobserve]

From 1939, Royal navy already blocked all the foreign raw material supplies to mainland Europe: especially food and oil. Hitler's reserve of these two were quickly dropping. USSR was his only hope, otherwise German would collapse within 2 years.



No way!
Germany logistic couldn't handle Rommel's Afrika korps (<300,000 men), what makes you believe they can supply a much bigger army in much longer distance?

PS: Russians' mobilization already started, they would get ready in 1943. What would happen when they were ready and hilter's main forces trapped in remote territory?

The combined Italian and Nazi forces in the the Meditterenean was superior to the RN and RAF in 1940-1941. Had Hitler not luncjed Barbarossa too early he could have provided more resorces to his Afrika Corps.

I firmy believe that Hitler had a better chance of winning had he did not took on the Western allies and USSR at the same time. German industrial output and resources simply was not ready for a multi-front war.

Here's German resources map at its height in WW2:

Re Soviet mobilization, I agree with most observers that Stalin was playing safe in the early stages of WW2 and was waiting for Axis amd Western allies to be exhsusted before he moves against the West. Stalin was simply not ready to take on Germany in the early 1940s as seen by his embarassing debacle in Finland.

 

[asianobserve]

Speaking of allies, a very and who knows, maybe the most crucial point was the war between Soviets and Japanese resulting in Neutrality pact that the Japanese kept while Soviets unilaterally denounced at the right time. Had the Japanese remained committed to the Tripartite Act when Germans invaded Soviets betraying Soviet-Japanese Neutrality pact 1941, the Soviet Union might have reached it's end. The Germans might very well have emerged victorious controlling an extremely large territory. I feel like Germans still secretly wish they had won and may strike at the right opportunity. Hitler probably didn't overestimate but miscalculated not knowing how his ally would act. Battles of Khalkhin Gol made the ultimate difference in the war.

As one member here said, Hitler bit mire than he could chew.

 

[Spindrift]

Hitler won against less powerful countries. France in 1940 was simply no match against Germany.

You're a hopeless ideologue. All your analysis of events are colored by "illegals."

If I remember my history correctly, France surrendered as they didn't want the Nazis to bomb their beautiful cities to rubble, the deal that was made with the then French government was that if France surrendered they get keep their colonies and and the Nazis don't bomb them back to stone age. However in the North France the people were against this deal and wanted to fight, but the people in the South of France and Paris did not want to fight.

 

[asianobserve]

If I remember my history correctly, France surrendered as they didn't want the Nazis to bomb their beautiful cities to rubble, the deal that was made with the then French government was that if France surrendered they get keep their colonies and and the Nazis don't bomb them back to stone age. However in the North France the people were against this deal and wanted to fight, but the people in the South of France and Paris did not want to fight.

Paris was overwhelmed by the speed and efficiemcy of blitzkrieg. They did not have a choice and was forced to negotiate with Hitler who got his railcar revenge.

 

[asianobserve]

An interesting fact I just learned about WW2 was that in the latter part of that war the Americans put into service an ice cream barge, which was a cement barge converted to make ice cream for US servicemen in the Pacific. Now, you know you're winning a war if you have a purpose built ice cream barge dispensing ice creams for the men in the field... and this was at a time when refrigeration was almost non-existent in most of the World.

Ice cream barge - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[no smoking]

The combined Italian and Nazi forces in the the Meditterenean was superior to the RN and RAF in 1940-1941.

Only within the Germany airforce strike range from her base in Sicily. Outside that area, Italian navy was struggling and losing gradually.

Had Hitler not luncjed Barbarossa too early he could have provided more resorces to his Afrika Corps.

It was not how much resources can be provided but how much can be delivered into the hands of Afrika Corps. The harbor Tripoli could only handle around 45000 tons cargo per month, Rommel's 6 divisions plus airforce needed at least 70000 per month. This situation only got ease when they took Benghazi (24000ton per month).

Even after these 70000 tong was unloaded, at least 1/3 would be spent on the truck fleet crossing the desert over 300 miles. When Rommel got closer to Suez, the amount was getting higher. The result was Rommel never got enough supply.

So, you can see, the size of Afrika corps was already the maximum that logistic can support.

 

[asianobserve]

Only within the Germany airforce strike range from her base in Sicily. Outside that area, Italian navy was struggling and losing gradually.



It was not how much resources can be provided but how much can be delivered into the hands of Afrika Corps. The harbor Tripoli could only handle around 45000 tons cargo per month, Rommel's 6 divisions plus airforce needed at least 70000 per month. This situation only got ease when they took Benghazi (24000ton per month).

Even after these 70000 tong was unloaded, at least 1/3 would be spent on the truck fleet crossing the desert over 300 miles. When Rommel got closer to Suez, the amount was getting higher. The result was Rommel never got enough supply.

So, you can see, the size of Afrika corps was already the maximum that logistic can support.

Actually Germany could easily have provided more resources to its Afrika Corps had it not commit itself to Barbarossa. The most important clue is on Rommel's continued badgering to the High command for more supplies. It means infrastructures were not the issue, the problem were the matrials.

What's noteworthy in Rommel's campaign is that it was materials and to some extent manpower shortage thst ultimately doomed it. In fact with very limited resources Rommel whipped the British and almost took Egypt.

Besides, had Hitler not launched Batbarossa, and with full focus on the North African to Egypt campaign, the Germans could easily committed men and materials to enlarging important docks in both Italy and the landing areas in North Africa to accomodate more ships.

 

[no smoking]

Actually Germany could easily have provided more resources to its Afrika Corps had it not commit itself to Barbarossa. The most important clue is on Rommel's continued badgering to the High command for more supplies. It means infrastructures were not the issue, the problem were the matrials.

Well, Germany generals had a tradition of ignoring logistic issues. This problem had repeatedly happened in East front: they rejected the logistic department warning of difficulties in overstretched supply lines and limit in infrastructures again and again.

The same mistake was made by Rommel as well:
1. he convinced Hitler that he could defeat British in Egypt without occupying Malta, which proved to be a huge mistake: Malta became the key base disturbing his supplies later;
2. Just like you, he also believed these logistic issues could be overcome: for example, he kept asking for more trucks to supply his army (already 20% of all Germany trucks) but refuse to listen that DAK had no more spares.

Infrastructures were issues before you fix them. However, fixing these issues means you have to ship building material, harbor equipment, construction workers first instead of guns, tanks, fuels and soldiers. And it took a lot of times.

Again, Rommel refused to wait.

And we haven't started to talk about that over 600 miles supply route through desert yet.

Besides, had Hitler not launched Batbarossa, and with full focus on the North African to Egypt campaign, the Germans could easily committed men and materials to enlarging important docks in both Italy and the landing areas in North Africa to accomodate more ships.

Again, you ignore the logistics:
1. Italy didn't have a big enough qualified merchant ships to support a massive Germany force. She only got 786 ships size bigger than 500 tones. Within 2 years, the figure down to 324;
2. Italy navy was not strong enough to protect the shipping. She was inferior to RN in quantity and quality;
3. According to DAK, the material requirement for Rommel's division was 10 times high than the same division fighting in Russia, I don't know how Hitler is going to say about that.

Most importantly, don't forget RUSSIA. You simply couldn't turn your eyes away when a 5 millions solider standing outside your door. Yes, they were terrible in Finland, but you know they were getting better.

 

[asianobserve]

Well, Germany generals had a tradition of ignoring logistic issues. This problem had repeatedly happened in East front: they rejected the logistic department warning of difficulties in overstretched supply lines and limit in infrastructures again and again.

The same mistake was made by Rommel as well:
1. he convinced Hitler that he could defeat British in Egypt without occupying Malta, which proved to be a huge mistake: Malta became the key base disturbing his supplies later;
2. Just like you, he also believed these logistic issues could be overcome: for example, he kept asking for more trucks to supply his army (already 20% of all Germany trucks) but refuse to listen that DAK had no more spares.

Infrastructures were issues before you fix them. However, fixing these issues means you have to ship building material, harbor equipment, construction workers first instead of guns, tanks, fuels and soldiers. And it took a lot of times.

Again, Rommel refused to wait.

And we haven't started to talk about that over 600 miles supply route through desert yet.



Again, you ignore the logistics:
1. Italy didn't have a big enough qualified merchant ships to support a massive Germany force. She only got 786 ships size bigger than 500 tones. Within 2 years, the figure down to 324;
2. Italy navy was not strong enough to protect the shipping. She was inferior to RN in quantity and quality;
3. According to DAK, the material requirement for Rommel's division was 10 times high than the same division fighting in Russia, I don't know how Hitler is going to say about that.

Most importantly, don't forget RUSSIA. You simply couldn't turn your eyes away when a 5 millions solider standing outside your door. Yes, they were terrible in Finland, but you know they were getting better.

My thesis is Hitler should not have invaded Stalin that early. Instead Hitler should have focused on defeating the British in Africa and the Middle East to 1) cut off British supply lines to its colonies and 2) wrest control of African and Middle Eastern oil fields, which would have forced Britain to negotiate.

 

[no smoking]

My thesis is Hitler should not have invaded Stalin that early. Instead Hitler should have focused on defeating the British in Africa and the Middle East to 1) cut off British supply lines to its colonies and 2) wrest control of African and Middle Eastern oil fields, which would have forced Britain to negotiate.

You theory doesn't work because you ignore other issues:
1. Huge logistic challenge in this direction;
2. The time (at least 1.5 years) required to defeat British in middle east which is thousands km away from German but much closer from British India. In the mean time, Hitler was running out of food and oil;
3. Russia and US would get ready in 1943, he would be at their mercy.