Why did Germany win so much in WW2?

George said:
Think the Navy was expecting/planning for War in '47-8 start time, not '39. Would have had an interesting fleet by then.
Click to expand...

h44-class-battleship-i8.jpg
 
Last edited:
The speed with which Hitler moved and the echoes of World War I, blinded some of the world's major powers to what they faced in Hitler's aggressive movements.

The early German success in WWII was due to the fact that Germany was much more ready to go to war and had been planning for a war for years. By contrast, the Allies had simply been hoping that no war would occur. For years, the German military had been planning ways to reverse their loss in WWI. In the mean time, the Allies were doing no such thing because they were not driven to avenge any loss. Instead, they were simply hoping that the sanctions would prevent German remilitarization and that outdated tactics like the use of the Maginot Line would be effective.

Since Germany had new tactics and was ready for war, it was able to win many early victories while the Allies "played catch-up."

In the final stages of the war, Hitler's military strategies lacked "coherence." It would seem that the element of surprise and the recent "costs" of WWI at first slowed the Allies' ability to successfully respond to Hitler's advancement through Europe.
 
BritinAfrica said:
As a matter of interest Opa, how are your memoirs coming along?

:sorry::offtopic: I know.
Click to expand...

It goes slowly forward. It takes time.
There was so much from my time in the intelligence service that I would have loved to tell, especially the funny episodes. But unfortunately I can not.
 
Der Alte said:
It goes slowly forward. It takes time.
There was so much from my time in the intelligence service that I would have loved to tell, especially the funny episodes. But unfortunately I can not.
Click to expand...

Understandable of course. However, I would love to read what you are able to write.
 
I think that the words "unconditional surrender" from Roosevelt at Casablanca in 1943 came as a shock to Hitler. Making a peace deal while in full strength was torpedoed. Maybe it was because of that that he started to make the big blunders. He knew that he had to fight for survival and not for victory.
 
Germany was so affective in WW2 mainly because of superiority of the Wermacht's small arms as well as their tactics.In their earliest triumpths,the opposition were still using outdated WW1 tactics,that Hitler,and his advisors,had done away with and updated.Many of the Wermacht's tactics,as well as their weapons were forerunners of things being used and done to this very day.The German Army,lest one forget,was the finest army in the world,bar none at the time.The Russians turned the tide with a combination of vastly superior numbers,as well as a savage winter.The T-34 Tank was also a formidable weapon as well.The Russians lost 15 men,to every 1 the Germans lost through 1942,and the British would never have been able to land in Normandy,let alone fight into Germany,had we not entered the war.I have always had,and always wiLL have,a great deal of respect for the German Wermacht in WW2,as well as the Reichswehr in WW1.The U.S. was the difference in both World Wars eventually.
 
Last edited:
The lost ratio was not 15 to one; in 1942,the Germans lost 1.1 million men,the Soviets6.5 million .
And,the role of the 1941/1942 winter was unimportant for the outcome of the war .
 
1.1 million is the official German figure for the army and WSS losses on the eastfront in 1942.
6.584 million is the same for the soviet side
both figures are without sick,thus combat losses only .
And,what would be the Stalin kill ratio ? Never heard of it .
 
MontyB said:
I am not sure about that, had the Z-Plan been completed I think the Kriegsmarine would have been able to compete with the Royal Navy certainly in the North Sea and probably the Atlantic.

For all of the Royal Navies strength it should be remembered that much of it was spread around the world defending an empire and not focused around the UK.
Click to expand...

Only if you see the UK not responding to plan Z and carrying on with its planned shipbuilding. Once the Germans had started seriously building warships the UK would have responded the same way they did prior to the first war and simply outbuilt the Germans. I believe the UK would have given the RN absolute priority if there was ever a hint of a real second naval race.
 
beitou said:
Only if you see the UK not responding to plan Z and carrying on with its planned shipbuilding. Once the Germans had started seriously building warships the UK would have responded the same way they did prior to the first war and simply outbuilt the Germans. I believe the UK would have given the RN absolute priority if there was ever a hint of a real second naval race.
Click to expand...

All true but the UK's problem was not a shortage of ships but rather an obligation to maintain fleets around the world so British naval construction was always going to be diluted by the need to station ships around the world.
 
The UK was short of cash at this time and buying vast amounts of military hardware was a long way down the list of things to do. It was not until the Munich agreement did the UK start building up its forces again with orders for new ships, planes and ground equipment and much of this did not start arriving till after the start of the war.
 
Yep true about Munich but when would Germany have put plan Z into full effect, cant see it being much before Munich. Likewise yes the RN had global commitments but again if a full on naval race had occured with Germany the home fleet would have had priortity. Look at what happened in the first race, battle cruisers and dreadnaughts at home second rate armoured cruisers in foreign stations.
 
Last edited:
lljadw said:
And,the role of the 1941/1942 winter was unimportant for the outcome of the war .
Click to expand...
It was very important for the outcome of the war, for several reasons although I seem to remember having a debate with you over this before. We didn't get any consensus then and I'm not expecting any this time round.

Briefly, the main reasons why Germany won so many early victories were:

  1. Auftragstaktik or mission-based tactics. This allowed the Heer to be more tactically flexible and faster reacting than other armies who generally relied on order-based tactics.
  2. The faster adoption of newer tactics and weapon delivery systems that other armies had stalled on. Not just on the obvious things like tanks but also on other things like infantry squad organisation and tactics. This would make the German Heer very effective on the defensive right up to 1945.
  3. The element of political surprise and aggression and the exploitation of the lack of a central unifying political and military structure in 1940s Europe.
Although Hitler did not mean to go to war over Poland, he knew he would have to do it pretty quickly anyway. By 1943, his enemies would have caught up in many areas although the Heer would still have been one of the best tactical armies in the world due to Auftragstaktik and their general tactical organisation. Also, since the reforms of Scharnhorst, Moltke and the influence of Clausewitz the Germans were set up for short, sharp wars. So in hindsight, the quick planned campaigns between 1939-1942 suited the Germans and their way of war down to the ground. It was both their greatest strength and one of their greatest weaknesses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top