About Why did Germany lose WW2?
|December 31st, 2007||#1|
| || |
Why did Germany lose WW2? info
Over successive years I have heard a lot of reasons for this failure and at the time all of them seemed to make sense:
- Failure to finish off Britain at Dunkirk
- Failure to have any real plan to invade Britain and clean up the west before attacking Russia thus ensuring a 2 front war.
- Simply under-estimating the Russians at Stalingrad and Kursk.
- Some have even suggested that the whole 1942 offensive was misguided and they should have gone straight to Moscow (This assumes Russia would have surrendered with the fall of Moscow).
- They were simply out numbered, out gunned and out classed once both Russia and the USA were at full war footing.
- Countless others of which my personal favourite is that the Italians cost them the war as everywhere the Italians fought the Germans met with disaster.
However recently I have been reading a few books that indicate that the greatest failure was that of supply, failure to place the economy on a full war footing until it was too late, not planning for the gauge change between German and Russian rail lines, the use of countless variants of weapons etc.
Anyone have any opinions on this?
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices. - Voltaire 1694-1778
|December 31st, 2007||#2|
| || |
Main reason why Germany lost the war was starting it... Almost alone vs. all the remaining world - there was no chance to win.
However, if war was already started, further reasons of failure were:
- Underestimation of USSR, i.e. German Stuff assumed that `Barbarossa` will be like fights in previous campaigns. They did not adequately take into account a lot of factors, such as long distances in USSR and quality of roads. Also they hoped that Soviet people won't fight for Stalin's regime, and after short Blitzkrieg, like in France, when the regular army will be defeated, no resistance will remain. However, USSR announced the `total mobilization` and made up new divisions faster than Germans were able to defeat existing ones, so the Blitzkrieg failed and Germans were totally unprepared for long-lasting exhausting war.
- Unlike the USSR, Germany did not announce any `total mobilization` until the very end when `Volkssturm` and `Hitlerjugend` combat units appeared.
- The tend of military engineering to design low-number high-quality `Wunderwaffes` instead of mass production weapons.
- Insufficient use of man power, which in fact could be available. For example, Volunteer Waffen SS divisions from citizens of `new` Soviet Republics (Baltic states, part of Ukraine) were created only in 1943 and later. If do it earlier and promise a independence of these countries after defeat of USSR, the number and motivation of former-USSR citizen divisions could be greater. However, it was possible only if Hitler took step back of his Nazi ideology and refuse to make a pangerman `reichkommissariats` in occupied territories of USSR.
|December 31st, 2007||#3|
| || |
"- They were simply out numbered, out gunned and out classed once both Russia and the USA were at full war footing."
Having a megalomaniac making strategic combat decisions didn't help much either.
The short time and large quantities of battle ready armament that the US threw into the war effort surprised everyone, including themselves.
“War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.”
—John Stuart Mill
|December 31st, 2007||#5|
| || |
First changing combat objectives in sealion (planned invasion of England) to bombing cities.
Second Starting a war with The Soviet Union before deafeating England, or starting that at all, and then switching from Moskow to the Kaukasus.
Third starting war with the United States two days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, so that the US sent more equipment to Europe then before, like bombers and eventually soldiers.
|December 31st, 2007||#6|
| || |
I think this would have been an option only in the event that France and Britain had failed to declare war over Poland and had they not signed the deal to "share" Poland.
Once the west had declared war Germany had to secure France or risk a war on two fronts.
Last edited by MontyB; December 31st, 2007 at 21:38..
|December 31st, 2007||#7|
| || |
What concerns Moscow and Caucasus, this decision was quite logic and correct since in case of successful assault to Caucasus Germans could capture the main oil fields of USSR in Baku and thus leave the USSR without oil. Problem was in lack of resources to fulfill the plan...
|January 1st, 2008||#8|
| || |
The Germans never ever lost the war.
They knew exactly where it was at all times.
|January 1st, 2008||#10|
| || |
It can be argued that there were in fact 2 major wars that occurred from 1939-1945. The first, a European war, lasted from September 1st, 1939 until September 30, 1941 (i.e. 2 years), which Germany decisively won. The 2nd war, which started when Hitler declared war on the USA they obviously lost, at least in the short-term. The other thing to consider is who won the war in the long term? Did Germany really lose long-term?
Anyway, the reason why Germany didn't 'win WW2' was simply because they failed to achieve a decisive victory over the Red Army in the Battle of Moscow, which started on September 30th, 1941. Had they done so it wouldn't have mattered one bit whether Hitler declared war on the USA or not. if Hitler knocks Stalin out of the war everything changes.
In fact, let's narrow it down further. There is much contention over this but the reason that Germany lost WW2 might be because of the 'Lötzen Decision'.
"An Emperor is subject to no-one but God and justice."
Frederick 1, Barbarossa
|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?|