Okay, I havent' really been paying attention to what's going on here, but I am going to say that Germany ran out of manpower and places to build things. The constant bombings by the Allies destroyed any factories used to build aircraft, tanks, etc. and the Third Reich was out of men to fight in the war. Their losses were enormous and, unlike the USSR or the US they had no one else to fight. And let's not forget the large numbers of soldiers being used to operate concentration camps instead of fight on the fronts.

Not sure this is worth another thread so I figure I will add this question, what would have the outcome been had Germany not declared war on the USA?

- Would the US have gone for the "Germany first" policy if this hadn't have happened.

Lets be realistic here Britain and the Commonwealth could not have landed in France or Italy without the extra manpower and logistics of the US would this have extended the war allowing the development of a A-Bomb and launch system, could the RAF managed enough damage and disruption to German industry on its own to effect logistics problems for the German army?

Hmm maybe it should have had its own thread.

Originally Posted by rock45

It seem from the films cities were the main targets and industry in and around them but not German troops formations? Another I hope not a stupid question I always wanted to know why weren't the German heavy anti-aircraft guns regiments surrounding the same cites month after month never taken out?

The Allies were indeed criticised for their city bombing campaign, particularly RAF Bomber Command led by 'Bomber' Harris. The RAF had technology oriented for night bombing, in which case entire cities make easier targets. More selected targets were attempted by the American day bombers later protected by fighter escorts. Harris argued that the main objectives of night-time blanket bombing of urban areas was to "undermine the morale of the civilian population", even Churchill urged him to stop. Germany particularly criticised the bombing of Dresden late in the war, perhaps justifiably so because they were heavy troop movements at German ports which they said would have made better military targets. Bear in mind that Stalin was putting pressure on the Allies to bomb cities and the decisions could have been partly political.

Regarding why AA guns were not targeted more, I'm not sure. Perhaps they needed a direct hit protected by sandbags/dig outs and going after the munitions that supplied them in factories were a better strategy.

I would have no objections if these posts about city bombing and German production were put onto a separate thread. However, I may be repeating myself.

Originally Posted by perseus

Regarding why AA guns were not targeted more, I'm not sure. Perhaps they needed a direct hit protected by sandbags/dig outs and going after the munitions that supplied them in factories were a better strategy.

I think there were a couple of reasons this wasn't done.
1) It was hard enough to drop a bomb accurately enough to hit a suburb of the city you were aiming at let along a specific gun within it, from what I recall at 35000 feet they were lucky to get within 5 miles of a specific target which I think was one of the reasons they switched to area bombing.

2) As I recall (and I may be wrong) many of the guns were mobile so getting accurate intel on their location at any one time would have been next to impossible

I would have no objections if these posts about city bombing and German production were put onto a separate thread. However, I may be repeating myself.

Hehe I just mentioned it as a way of being able to discuss a subject more precisely and not moving off topic.

The Other Guy..........Labour in German factories was never a problem, the Germans conscripted millions of young men from countries that they had occupied as slave labour. Millions of Russian POWs were turned into slave labour on heavy construction sites and worked to death, also many Jews were also put to work for their German masters. Production was kept at very high level when you think of the damage done by Allied air power

MontyB....By 1944 the RAF Pathfinders were so accurate that they could place their markers onto an area the size of a tennis court. They were so accurate that Goring thought that spies where guiding them in by radio

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

On that note, I would like to add something. Under Putin, the Russians think that they have become something again. I can only ask...what? More targets for me and my Volk? The current German military ain't that which it was, but they could still deal with any Russian "threat". I can only say: Bring it on!

Now then Ollie, I must save you from getting carried away again! I'll play Churchill and you can be Adolf, and i will try to dissuade you from dreams of glory.

Reason not to try No.1 - You've already had two shots at the world title!
That is quite enough. Sorry - you missed the bus.

But now they've given you Europe as the booby prize, so be satisfied!

Originally Posted by Del Boy

Now then Ollie, I must save you from getting carried away again! I'll play Churchill and you can be Adolf, and i will try to dissuade you from dreams of glory.

The thing is Churchill didn't win though, Stalin did.

Sorry, had little patience to read all 22 pages...Writing why I think on Hitler's defeat:
1) the personality of Fuhrer itself. Always interfering, always comanding through the head of his own generals.
2) political mistakes: there was no need in exterminating entire nations. Nazi did not realise other nations had a right to have their own states. result: entire regions that could have been at least pro-German, were turned to hostile.
3) weak allies. Not to offend anyone from these contries, but Italian and Japanese support caused more problems than gains. Italian army was too weak and Italy's ambitions were too high. Same with Japanese: they could afford war against pure-armed enemies or by using means of surprise attack, but when it came to encounter with Allied armies or Russians - Japanese light tanks failed to make any quality resistance.
4) the war at all fronts. Germany was fighting at all fronts, from US coasts to Africa, Scandinavia, Britain and finally - Russia + helping Italy
5) over-estimating its own forces and under-estimating enemy. Especially with the Soviets. It may be due to poor inteligence. Also, many time waisted on projects that were not necessery like the Loewe / Maus projects (complete waist of time and metal). Also, German army used many vehicles from occupied cotnries and therefore - many types of ammo. Soviets or Allies did not have such a problem.
6) radical in words, poor in action: lack to employ women labor (have read on the Internet Britain and US had higher % than Nazi); failure to cut off what was a luxury. Goebbells' total war was a good idea, the problem is, this idea did not come true.
7) ideology over relaity: the battle for Stalingrad, the failrue to meet the tactic of Blitzkrieg.
failure to ensure Japan's attack. Russians had pretty time to deploy their Siberian divisions into front. If Japan attacked - Russian Siberian forces would not be capable to arrive to Moscow.

Marder............Many countries like Britain and America were still reeling from the depression and had cut defence spending enormously leaving all their forces very weak. It was not until a couple of years before war was declared did Britain get it first monoplane fighter the Hawker Hurricane and most of that was made out of fabric.
Not only was Germany fighting on all fronts but so was Britain, Germany not employing women, well they did in their forces, but why should they put them into the factories when they had millions of men as slave labour. All the conquered countries had men drafted into factories producing weapons of war. Also many Russian POW were put to work on heavy industrial projects and worked till they died.
As to not wanting to upset any one, we all knew that we were not in condition to start a war with one in in the mid 1930's