Dr. A. Roberts presents: Why Hitler Lost the War - German Strategic Mistakes in WWII

perseus

perseus

Active member
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5agLW7fTzBc"]A good presentation[/ame], but perhaps a rather Anglo-American centric view of the war?

Perhaps he should have added that Hitler underestimated the power of Stalin's own brand of totalitarianism especially when driven to desperation, something which he almost achieved himself and should have understood.

Roberts also wrote the best seller 'The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War', hardly groundbreaking but again a good overview.

He also has some rather controversial political views.
 
Last edited:
The presentation

I found it rather on target. Particularly in mentioning of Hitler's distain for the use of the strategic withdrawal. If the German commanders in the field were allowed this freedom of movement it would have saved the lives of many German solders. Instead Hitler often waited until it was to late to do anything but make a mad dash, leaving the heavy equipment behind. Although by this time the war was likely lost.
Also he flippantly declared war on the US perhaps his worse move in the war, good point.
He could have mentioned a bit more about Hitler's - Germany's errors -catastrophes in the USSR which is where the war was really lost for the most part.
 
I think his views were flawed right from the start where he claims WW2 was a war that Germany could have won, he then goes on to repeat and attempt to justify every common misconception about the war that has existed since the war.

Take for example his comments about operation Sealion he seems to attribute the German decision not to invade on the defeat in the Battle of Britain and ignores the fact that Germany did not have a navy capable of transfering the invasion force to the invasion beaches nor was it capable of defending the supply lines to those beaches therefore it was impossible to invade Britain (as indicated by the 1974 Sandhurst wargames).

Worst of all like all "armchair Generals" at no stage does he mention the Royal Navy who's actions in Norway had all but destroyed the German destroyer force and who's size and presence meant that any invasion of Britain was going to a suicide mission.
 
MontyB said:
I think his views were flawed right from the start where he claims WW2 was a war that Germany could have won, he then goes on to repeat and attempt to justify every common misconception about the war that has existed since the war.

Take for example his comments about operation Sealion he seems to attribute the German decision not to invade on the defeat in the Battle of Britain and ignores the fact that Germany did not have a navy capable of transfering the invasion force to the invasion beaches nor was it capable of defending the supply lines to those beaches therefore it was impossible to invade Britain (as indicated by the 1974 Sandhurst wargames).

Worst of all like all "armchair Generals" at no stage does he mention the Royal Navy who's actions in Norway had all but destroyed the German destroyer force and who's size and presence meant that any invasion of Britain was going to a suicide mission.
Click to expand...

Yes I thought similarly when he mentioned the Battle of Britain. All the same surely it was a war Germany could have won, it depends what stage you wish to change history.

1) before Hitler's 'halt order' in late May 1940?

2) before the invasion of Russia?

3) before the declaration of war on the US?

would German defeat have been likely in all these cases?

It would be difficult to see a German defeat if large numbers of Ukrainians and 'White' Russian people defected to Hitler in retaliation for the atrocities of Stalin and the Reds.
 
Eminent Churchillians is a good book, but "Why Hitler lost the war-German strategic mistakes in WWII" is qualifying the author as a crap-writer :German mistakes in WWII were irrelevant for the outcome of the war (if there were any strategic mistakes,something which is questionable) .
 
perseus said:
Yes I thought similarly when he mentioned the Battle of Britain. All the same surely it was a war Germany could have won, it depends what stage you wish to change history.

1) before Hitler's 'halt order' in late May 1940?

2) before the invasion of Russia?

3) before the declaration of war on the US?

would German defeat have been likely in all these cases?

It would be difficult to see a German defeat if large numbers of Ukrainians and 'White' Russian people defected to Hitler in retaliation for the atrocities of Stalin and the Reds.
Click to expand...


There were a lot of Ukrainians and White Russians defecting to Hitler, but the result was still :the Soviets in Berlin .
 
perseus said:
Yes I thought similarly when he mentioned the Battle of Britain. All the same surely it was a war Germany could have won, it depends what stage you wish to change history.

1) before Hitler's 'halt order' in late May 1940?

2) before the invasion of Russia?

3) before the declaration of war on the US?

would German defeat have been likely in all these cases?

It would be difficult to see a German defeat if large numbers of Ukrainians and 'White' Russian people defected to Hitler in retaliation for the atrocities of Stalin and the Reds.
Click to expand...

4) None of the above.

One of the things that is never defined in these discussions is what conditions would have to have existed before Germany could have claimed victory.

In the broadest definition it was WORLD war II therefore logically Germany or its allies would have to have controlled the world which was never likely.

A more narrow definition would have been Germany controlling all of europe and the Atlantic (Urals to Los Angeles) just as unlikely for a nation that has not prioritised its navy and that had already lost the Battle of Britain.

The fact is that even at the height of the Axis power they never looked like being able to control the world.
 
Comment on USSR

lljadw said:
There were a lot of Ukrainians and White Russians defecting to Hitler, but the result was still :the Soviets in Berlin .
Click to expand...

I have to comment on this.
More Ukrainians were murdered by the Nazi's than were Jews. Nearly 30 % of the population of White Russia "Belorussia" were wiped out by the Nazis. Yes a few jumped to the Nazi's side mainly to save their hide or due to old blood feuds with the Bolsheviks. Actually the most famous of these was the Don Cossacks. Hundreds perhaps as many as a thousand towns and villages in these countries were burned complete with the inhabitants locked inside the burning building. Watch the documentary the fight within "Blood upon the Snow". Hitler fought the war in the USSR as a 3 fold war. To gain resources (most of which the USSR was supplies in peace time), gain living room for the supposedly overpopulated Germany and a war of extermination against the Slavs.

Vadim Erlikman has detailed Soviet losses totaling 26.5 million war related deaths. Military losses of 10.6 million include 6.0 million killed or missing in action and 3.6 million POW dead, plus 400,000 paramilitary and Soviet partisan losses.
Civilian deaths totaled 15.9 million, which included 1.5 million from military actions; 7.1 million victims of Nazi genocide and reprisals; 1.8 million deported to Germany for forced labor; and 5.5 million famine and disease deaths. Additional famine deaths, which totaled 1 million during 1946–47, are not included here. Soviet repressions seems also to be not included. These losses are for the entire territory of the USSR including territories annexed in 1939–40. BTW Gorbachev said that the Soviet civilian dead was ~ 19 million.Belarus lost a quarter of its pre-war population, including practically all its intellectual elite. Following bloody encirclement battles, all of the present-day Belarus territory was occupied by the Germans by the end of August 1941. The Nazis imposed a brutal regime, deporting some 380,000 young people for slave labour, and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians more.[citation needed] More than 600 villages like Khatyn were burned with their entire population.[71] More than 209 cities and towns (out of 270 total) and 9,000 villages were destroyed.
Himmler pronounced a plan according to which 3/4 of Belarusian population was designated for "eradication" and 1/4 of racially cleaner population (blue eyes, light hair) would be allowed to serve Germans as slaves.
Some recent reports raise the number of Belarusians who perished in War to "3 million 650 thousand people, unlike the former 2.2 million. That is to say not every fourth inhabitant but almost 40% of the pre-war Belarusian population perished (considering the present-day borders of Belarus).
If the Nazi's crazed genocidal policies were not implemented on such a grand scale they likely would have won in the USSR as most Balts, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Chechens, Tartars would have gladly sided with Germany to throw off the Stalinist yoke. Instead he made them forget about Stalin by being in worse.
 
JOC said:
If the Nazi's crazed genocidal policies were not implemented on such a grand scale they likely would have won in the USSR as most Balts, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Chechens, Tartars would have gladly sided with Germany to throw off the Stalinist yoke. Instead he made them forget about Stalin by being in worse.
Click to expand...

NO

1) A lot of people disliked Stalin,but most of them would not fight against Stalin.

2)A lot of Germans disliked Hitler,but they would not fight with the allies against Hitler.

3) A lot of Soviets disliked the Germans,but most people in the occupied territories were not fighting against the Germans.

4) If more Balts,etc were joining the Germans,it would not help the Germans,because the Germans had not even sufficient weapons for their own troops .


Besides,you are exaggerating the hostility in the SU to the regime:the hostility was concentrated in the territories annexed by the Soviets between 1939/1940.
Afaics,in the other parts of the SU(with some exceptions),there was no pronounced hostility to the regime .

This is also proven by the war : although there were a lot of Soviet POW,there were no mass surrenderings (with a few exceptions) and from the beginning,the Soviet soldier was fighting stubbornly .
 
I should advise Gerhard Weinberg in " WWII:Myths,Misconceptions and Surprises"(available on the web)
 
lljadw said:
NO

1) A lot of people disliked Stalin,but most of them would not fight against Stalin.

2)A lot of Germans disliked Hitler,but they would not fight with the allies against Hitler.

3) A lot of Soviets disliked the Germans,but most people in the occupied territories were not fighting against the Germans.

4) If more Balts,etc were joining the Germans,it would not help the Germans,because the Germans had not even sufficient weapons for their own troops .


Besides,you are exaggerating the hostility in the SU to the regime:the hostility was concentrated in the territories annexed by the Soviets between 1939/1940.
Afaics,in the other parts of the SU(with some exceptions),there was no pronounced hostility to the regime .

This is also proven by the war : although there were a lot of Soviet POW,there were no mass surrenderings (with a few exceptions) and from the beginning,the Soviet soldier was fighting stubbornly .
Click to expand...

1) Many people hated Stalin and would fight against him if the Germans went in as liberators. I named many of the groups in my previous post.

2) Hitler had a 90% approval rating and was seen as a God like figure by many Germans. Even in the end the when defeat was certain they still remained loyal except for some of the officer corps.

3) People in occupied Europe fought the Nazis. France, Italy, Yugoslavia, Poland, the USSR, Holland Belgium, Norway, Greece all had resistance cells that tied up valuable German troops and caused some irreparable damage “heavy water in Norway, mountain passes in the Balkans that took months to clear”.

4) Of the peoples who joined the Waffen SS so called foreign legions most performed rear guard duty. I’m sure a few extra mousers could be found when needed.
Belorussia, Ukraine, Chechnya, the Crimea, Kalmytaka were not annexed in 1939/1940 all these countries were all very hostile to Stalin

Are you kidding no country has ever had 5 million POW’s in the history of warfare, 700,000 at Kiev alone.

I will give you that one the Soviet Soldier may not have been as well trained and professional as his German counterpart but they were stubborn and fought to the death. Besides what was the alternative surrender and die at the hands of the Nazi’s or retreat and get shoot by blocking troops.
 
Last edited:
JOC said:
3) People in occupied Europe fought the Nazis. France, Italy, Yugoslavia, Poland, the USSR, Holland Belgium, Norway, Greece all had resistance cells that tied up valuable German troops and caused some irreparable damage “heavy water in Norway, mountain passes in the Balkans that took months to clear”.
Click to expand...


This is a widespread misconception : A FEW people in occupied Europe fought the nazis (most had only one aim : to survive),live was going on .

That they tied up valuable German troops and caused irreparable damage is postwar resistance propaganda .
 
JOC said:
700,000 at Kiev alone. [/quote ] postwar propaganda

official (and INFLATED) German figures on Soviet POW in 1941

june : 112000

july: 700000

august : 700000

september : 1 million

october : 1.03 million

november : 290000

december : 75000


at the end of the year,the Germans arbitrary decreased the total by 500000,because they did not believe (any more) their own figures .

Besides, 5 million POW does not indicate a bad moral,or unwillingbess to fight :France lost 1.7 million POW in 6 weeks and no one will say that they fought badly .

At the end of the summer of 1941,the offensive power of the WM had been broken : losses in august : 200000
Click to expand...
 
lljadw said:
JOC said:
700,000 at Kiev alone. [/quote ] postwar propaganda

official (and INFLATED) German figures on Soviet POW in 1941

june : 112000

july: 700000

august : 700000

september : 1 million

october : 1.03 million

november : 290000

december : 75000


at the end of the year,the Germans arbitrary decreased the total by 500000,because they did not believe (any more) their own figures .

Besides, 5 million POW does not indicate a bad moral,or unwillingbess to fight :France lost 1.7 million POW in 6 weeks and no one will say that they fought badly .

At the end of the summer of 1941,the offensive power of the WM had been broken : losses in august : 200000
Click to expand...

Well the French certainly weren't at the top of their game with > 10 Frenchman dying for every German during the battle for France.

The Ostheer 1st began to see issues outside Moscow 'Operation Typhoon'. Even after the Moscow victory the Soviets suffered massive defeats in the winter of 42, losing 100.000 of thousands of more POW's and dead. However here is where the war of attrition started to set-in in which the Germans couldn't quite keep up with the seemingly limitless manpower resources of the USSR.
Click to expand...
 
MontyB said:
4) None of the above.

One of the things that is never defined in these discussions is what conditions would have to have existed before Germany could have claimed victory.

In the broadest definition it was WORLD war II therefore logically Germany or its allies would have to have controlled the world which was never likely.

A more narrow definition would have been Germany controlling all of europe and the Atlantic (Urals to Los Angeles) just as unlikely for a nation that has not prioritised its navy and that had already lost the Battle of Britain.

The fact is that even at the height of the Axis power they never looked like being able to control the world.
Click to expand...

I envisage the most likely scenario, barring Hitlers mania, and assuming some coordination between the various powers, was complete Axis control of Europe, Asia, Australasia & Africa, with the America's remaining independent.

If the UK and it's empire was taken, I couldn't really see the US attempting to continue a war with Germany at all. By what route would they attack Germany assuming Russia and the UK was under Axis control?
 
Last edited:
perseus said:
I envisage the most likely scenario, barring Hitlers mania, and assuming some coordination between the various powers, was complete Axis control of Europe, Asia, Australasia & Africa, with the America's remaining independent.

If the UK and it's empire was taken, I couldn't really see the US attempting to continue a war with Germany at all. By what route would they attack Germany assuming Russia and the UK was under Axis control?
Click to expand...

Speaking for Germany and her satellite sates. I think if they had managed to knock the USSR out of the war which appeared feasible in 41 perhaps even into 42 an Nazi dominated Europe from the Pyrenees to the Urals was tangable. I don’t know that Hitler was really interested in the rest of the so called world. Although I have heard of far flung plans to go further.
I don’t know how they would have managed to take Britain with Britain’s navy except, perhaps by staving them out with massive u-boats packs? However this thorn in Hitler’s side Britain would have always left an opening for the US. Hitler secretly hoped to make peace someday with Britain considering them fellow Aryans. Churchill would have none of this. Churchill once said “if Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil”
 
Last edited:
JOC said:
Churchill would have none of this. Churchill once said “if Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil”
Click to expand...

This would be the same Churchill that created a famine in India/Bangladesh to ensure Britain had more than it needed?

I am sorry I realise that this will draw the ire of a few but Churchill was an a-hole.
 
MontyB said:
This would be the same Churchill that created a famine in India/Bangladesh to ensure Britain had more than it needed?

I am sorry I realise that this will draw the ire of a few but Churchill was an a-hole.
Click to expand...

I thought Britain depended heavily on lend lease for food? Spam and such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top