Originally Posted by lljadw

The planning was done by the generals
Which paramilitary groups do you mean .
If there was so much change in the weapon manufacturing ,was this due to Hitler's demands ?

The generals made the plans. Hitler chose the one that he liked.

The same with weapons. The companies made the prototypes, hitler chose the ones that he liked.

This, certainly, was bad for the war effort.

I always thought Hitler made the plans the Generals had to carry them out
Hitler also had the last word on what weapons made and how they should be used and where.

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

I always thought Hitler made the plans the Generals had to carry them out
Hitler also had the last word on what weapons made and how they should be used and where.

The Generals made all the operational plans but after December 1941 Hitler essentially oversaw the manner in which they carried those plans out. Hitler was obviously in charge of grand strategy which included weapons development and deployment.

One thing I've heard from a HUGE WWII scholar at my school is that the German Blitzkreig failed because they simply began running low on resources, especially oil for their tanks. This is one of the big causes for failing to finish off Russia, which is a big cause for failing in the war.

That's pretty much third-hand info though so there's plenty of room for error, I might be wrong.

you can never win with a dictator....

After reading dozens of books about the subject I reached the following conclusion:

1- The outcome of WW2 was decided on the Eastern Front (that one should be obvious to anybody that has some decent knowledge about this war).

2- Germany lost the war because the USSR had the manpower to maintain the front even when they were losing nearly 1 million men per month. It was quantity defeating quality. If any other country was hit by the strength of Barbarossa, they would have fallen. For example, the US managed to deploy 1.5 million men in 60 divisions in Europe by early 1945, after 7 months, the USSR lost 4.3 million men in 220 divisions in 5 months.

Originally Posted by Guaporense

After reading dozens of books about the subject I reached the following conclusion:

1- The outcome of WW2 was decided on the Eastern Front (that one should be obvious to anybody that has some decent knowledge about this war).

2- Germany lost the war because the USSR had the manpower to maintain the front even when they were losing nearly 1 million men per month. It was quantity defeating quality. If any other country was hit by the strength of Barbarossa, they would have fallen. For example, the US managed to deploy 1.5 million men in 60 divisions in Europe by early 1945, after 7 months, the USSR lost 4.3 million men in 220 divisions in 5 months.

yes and no:all fronts were interdependent:a collapse of the SU in 1941 would have made it very difficult fot the US and UK to win ,but a German victory in the Battle of the Atlantic(and the elimination of the UK) would have been desastrous for the SU
there was already a second front in june 1941 nly a third of the wehrmacht was committed in the east
2:quantity defeating quality :this is an exageration :the quantity had also a quality :the red army was not a horde of untrained men ,it was not cannon-fodder;the German losses were enormous in 1941 :an average of 31000 a year and the quality of the Wehrmacht was not that superior .
What is exact is that the SU survived in 1941,because it was able to send to the front some 6 million men AND weapons and supply

I dont entirely agree, had Britain not been in the war it would have freed up 50-60 divisions for the Eastern Front however the bulk of these were not well trained or equipped so while they may have made an impact in the East I doubt they would have changed the result.
Had the Soviet Union been taken out of the war though the Western Allies would never have defeated a full strength German Army to get ashore in Europe.

So I tend to believe that the war was lost in the East.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I dont entirely agree, had Britain not been in the war it would have freed up 50-60 divisions for the Eastern Front however the bulk of these were not well trained or equipped so while they may have made an impact in the East I doubt they would have changed the result.
Had the Soviet Union been taken out of the war though the Western Allies would never have defeated a full strength German Army to get ashore in Europe.

So I tend to believe that the war was lost in the East.

on the other hand :the bulk of the Luftwaffe committed to the defense of the Reich,also thousands of 88 mm guns,in june 1944 :OKH theatres ( east):2.6 million,OKW :1.6 million

Originally Posted by lljadw

there was already a second front in june 1941 nly a third of the wehrmacht was committed in the east

A third? That ain't right. By 'Wehrmacht' do you mean all the armed services of Germany or just the Army (Heer)? I'm pretty sure that almost all of the front line combat strength of the Heer and Luftwaffe was committed to Barbarossa. The vast majority of the divisions not committed in 1941 were in other theatres, i.e Africa or 2nd echelon or training formations. In other words they were not front line combat capable.

Originally Posted by lljadw

2:quantity defeating quality :this is an exageration :the quantity had also a quality :the red army was not a horde of untrained men ,it was not cannon-fodder;the German losses were enormous in 1941 :an average of 31000 a year and the quality of the Wehrmacht was not that superior .
What is exact is that the SU survived in 1941,because it was able to send to the front some 6 million men AND weapons and supply

The Red Army may not have been a horde of untrained men, but due to the officer purges of the late 1930s most of the best brains had been cut out of the Red Army. Many of the divisional and corps commanders facing the Germans in 1941 were either green or politically reliable officers who may not have been the best field commanders. There were some good commanders at the army level like Dimitri Lelyushenko, Boris Shaposhnikov and of course, Zhukov but most of the Red Army commanders were substandard compared to their contemparies in the Wehrmacht. The one thing in their favour was that they were on average 10 years younger and thus fitter and better able to withstand the demands of intense warfare.

Due to the staggering losses suffered in the field by the Red Army in 1941, they resorted to sending in troops with the minimal of basic training. They were also thrown piecemeal into useless offensives in late 1941 in a futile attempt to stem the march of the German Army. The Germans did suffer some significant losses but compared to the Red Army they were minimal. I no longer have my copy of 'Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century' by Krivosheev but if you check the force losses for each side in 1941 you'll see that the Red Army and VVS (Soviet Airforce) numerically lost a lot more than the Germans did. The Soviets eventually won because they were able to replace their losses whereas the Germans were not.