Why did Germany lose WW2?

About Why did Germany lose WW2? Page 79


  International Military Forums > Military History Forums > World War 1 to World War 2 Forum
User Name
Password

 
June 14th, 2012   #781
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Alte
Hitler's aims should not be a surprise to students of Mein Kampf.

1. To abolish the Treaty of Versailles.
The Versailles Treaty is worthless. 60 million German hearts and minds are on fire with anger and shame. They will cry out ‘We want war!’

2. To expand German territory.
It will be the duty of German foreign policy to get large spaces to feed and house the growing population of Germany. Destiny points us towards Russia.

3. To defeat Communism.
The menace of Russia hangs over Germany. All our strength is needed to rescue our nation from this international snake.
I would agree but then doesn't the invasion of Poland show an over confidence in the ability of Germany to take on both Britain and France, I understand the need for a common border with Russia in order to implement this eastward expansion but surely a better plan would have been to have followed Russia into Poland and negate the Anglo-Polish alliance?

I do not think it is unrealistic to have achieved this given that the Red Army had already been embarrassed in Poland a couple of years earlier.

Also the question still remains what happens after Russia?
Would that have been it or was rest of the world next?


We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
 
June 15th, 2012   #782
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
I would agree but then doesn't the invasion of Poland show an over confidence in the ability of Germany to take on both Britain and France, I understand the need for a common border with Russia in order to implement this eastward expansion but surely a better plan would have been to have followed Russia into Poland and negate the Anglo-Polish alliance?

I do not think it is unrealistic to have achieved this given that the Red Army had already been embarrassed in Poland a couple of years earlier.

Also the question still remains what happens after Russia?
Would that have been it or was rest of the world next?
1)the invasion of Poland had nothing to do with a war against B +F:Hitler was surprised by the DOW from B+F
2)there was no need for a common border with Russia,because there were no preparations in 1939 for a further expansion in the east :the war with Poland would result in a common border with Russia
3)What happens after Russia:you have looked to much at the Great DICTATOR:if there was a war with Russia,and,if Germany would win,Germany would be weaken,and be tied for generations in fruitless attempts to get anything worthfull from the east .
 
June 17th, 2012   #783
Doppleganger
 
 
Hitler had no real grand strategy. Sure he had ideological aims as set out by Mein Kempf but that didn't translate into a planned strategy as such. This was in line with German military doctrine carried over from the Prussian days. The Germans were much more focused on quick operations and campaigns, dictated by the fact that they determined early on that they would not be able to match the resources and output of the potential combined enemies ranged against them. They called it bewegungskrieg, which is war of movement. Because they were so fixated on quick campaigns, an overriding grand strategic plan was never properly established. You can see this well illustrated in WW2, where Germany planned a series of operations against country after country. However, there was no properly worked out strategy linking these operations, other than the need not to fight on 2 fronts.


"An Emperor is subject to no-one but God and justice."

Frederick 1, Barbarossa

Last edited by Doppleganger; June 17th, 2012 at 11:52..
 
June 18th, 2012   #784
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Hitler had no real grand strategy. Sure he had ideological aims as set out by Mein Kempf but that didn't translate into a planned strategy as such. This was in line with German military doctrine carried over from the Prussian days. The Germans were much more focused on quick operations and campaigns, dictated by the fact that they determined early on that they would not be able to match the resources and output of the potential combined enemies ranged against them. They called it bewegungskrieg, which is war of movement. Because they were so fixated on quick campaigns, an overriding grand strategic plan was never properly established. You can see this well illustrated in WW2, where Germany planned a series of operations against country after country. However, there was no properly worked out strategy linking these operations, other than the need not to fight on 2 fronts.
My point in discussing Germany's goals through WW2 were raised from a discussion about the Kriegsmarine being Germany's greatest flaw, the lack of a significant navy effectively turned WW2 into a repeat of the Napoleonic wars with France being contained and landlocked on the European continent and how it was ironic in some ways it was the pact with Russia that gave Germany its greatest chance of breaking this issue as it negated the Royal Navy ability to blockade Germany.
 
June 18th, 2012   #785
VDKMS
 
Maybe the lack of a powerfull navy prooves that Germany didn't foresee the enlargement of the "lebensraum" escalate into a world war. The comparison with the Napoleonic wars comes to mind. Napoleon's navy wasn't able to break the economic blockade of France. Maybe the breaking of a German blockade was the initial task of the Kriegsmarine.
 
June 21st, 2012   #786
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
Hm,Hitler did not lock up considerable reserves for the second beach attack :such reserves did not exist .
On 6 june 2SSPz(at Toulouse) received the order to go to Normandy,a few days later 9and 10 SS (at the eastfront) also received the order to go to Normandy .
Maybe not but I have just got through reading part of Jodl's post war interrogations where he specifically states that they had no specific knowledge of the location of D-Day but believed that it would probably be at Cherbourg with a second attack at the Pas de Calais.

He also mentioned that they while little information had been extracted from allied sources prior to D-Day they had extracted information from resistance and spy communications but did not know the exact day of the landings.
 
June 21st, 2012   #787
VDKMS
 
I still wonder why the Germans kept thinking for quite a time that there would be a second (and main) invasion in Pas the Calais when they must have known about the massive invasion fleet at Normandy.
 
June 22nd, 2012   #788
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
I still wonder why the Germans kept thinking for quite a time that there would be a second (and main) invasion in Pas the Calais when they must have known about the massive invasion fleet at Normandy.
As I have pointed out a couple of times and it is a theory that came from the book Surrender invites Death - Fighting the Waffen SS in Normandy when the Germans were doing the planning for operation Sealion back in 1940 they believed that 13 Divisions would be needed for the invasion of Britain and I suspect that in 1944 they believed that the Allies would need to land 13 Divisions for the reconquest of France.

So when 5 showed up on the beaches of Normandy and the Allies kept up with the Fortitude deceptions it was easy for them to believe that there were still 8 Divisions out there for a Pas de Calais landing.

Everything I have read to date says that they were not surprised about the Normandy landings as much as they were the timing of the landings and the condition at the time of the landing.

Essentially I think allied deceptions did not fool the Germans as much as it reinforced their own self deception about the conditions needed for a successful landing.
 
June 29th, 2012   #789
MontyB
 
 
Having read Jodls comments I am now done reading a declassified transcript of a discussion between Hitler and Japanese ambassador Ōshima on the 28th May 1944 and it would appear that Hitler really had no clue about D-Day:



(This is Oshima's report to Tokyo on his meeting with Hitler)

So on one hand you have Generaloberst Alfred Jodl stating that they expected the invasion at both Normandy and the Pas de Calais and on the other you have Hitler throwing darts at a dart board to pick the location.
 
July 6th, 2012   #790
El Zippo
 
 
Germans they made very aggressive demands, threatening war if they were not met. Britain and France responded with apeasement, hoping Ol' Dolph would finally be satisfied "NOT". Austria was annexed in 1938, with the rest of Chezckoslovakia taken over in 1939. Hitler made a peace pact with Joe Stalin and then invaded Poland in September 1939, starting another World War. In my opinion I think after already having Chezckoslovakia and Poland Germany should have halted, gained some International trust, re-grouped by taking advantage of what these countries had to offer as far as factories and natural resources. Build up their forces (secretly of course ) German Mechanized Divisions used Horse transport until the end of the war / although horses are efficient they had no chance of keeping up with Blitzkrieg tactics . Chezckoslovakia provided Germany with fine Tanks of which they used throughout. After a few years of build-up then strike hard at the naturally rich (resources wise) Mother Russia and push them all the way to the Ocean, because Stallingrad/Lenningrad wouldn't be far enough, Napolian made it that far and look at what happened to his army.
Just my opinion
 



Similar Topics
Japan and Germany co-operation in WW2
U.S. Issues Warning On Terrorism In Germany
China plans to invade US!
Allies and neutrals in WW2
How important was Germany right before WWII?