Why Did Germany Lose the War?

[ogukuo72]

I was so inspired by the discussion in another thread that I thought I should start a new thread.

Here's the thing I want to discuss:

Why is it that despite all the wonderful weapons that the Germans had developed, that they still lose the war in the end?

The Germans made such wondeful weapons from the Panther tank, to the Me-262, to the Type XX <sic?> U-Boats, to the V2 rockets. If war is determined by technological superiority alone, the Germans should have won the war. But it didn't.

I have argued in other threads that one of the reason was sheer wastage of resources, precisely to build those wonderful weapons, whereas the Germans should have been concentrating on building rough but good weapons, of which the Panzerfaust was the best example. Germany might still have been defeated, but it would represent the best use of the increasingly limited resources that Germany had to put up the best fight possible.

It has often been said that Germany was defeated by sheer numbers alone. But history has shown that being outnumbered does not necessarily lead to defeat. Afterall, the European powers managed to rule over huge populations with small armies, and even managed to defeat quite a few numerically superior armies along the way.

Though simplistic, however, this "Sheer Numbers" argument does hide some truths.

First, the Allies, especially the US, were better at mobilising their respective economies to war than Germany. It is a well known fact that Germany only reluctant begin to mobilise for total war in late 1942, after the crippling losses of Stalingrad and North Africa, and it was only under Albert Speer that German production begin to switch fully and efficiently to war production.

Second, the Allies had more access to resources, including manpower resources, than Germany. I think this one is obvious to all, and can be accepted as a truism. I will not argue this further unless someone chooses to disputes this.

Third, the Allies were better at making use of what resources they had.

While the Allies might not have produced breakthrough designs, they produced highly serviceable designs that were easy to produce and reliable. In combat, both meant that there would be more of these machines. Excellent designs in themselves, they were not sufficiently inferior to German designs to offset their greater numbers, especially if they were employed properly en masse.

In other words, while in terms of sheer technological marvel, the Germans had the edge, in terms of technological design for mass production, the Allies win hands down. In the age of industrialised warfare, this was what counted.

Fourth, the Allies were better at training men. Having a deeper pool of manpower to draw from to begin with, Allied countries, especially the US, proved able to rapidly mobilise large numbers of men, put them in uniform, train them in a wide variety of skills (ranging from the rifleman to the bomber pilot), transport them over vast distances to deploy them where they are needed.

The Germans, already suffering from a more limited pool of manpower, simply were not able to mobilise as efficiently. The Germans also failed in the logistics of training and deploying whatever manpower that they do have. By 1944, with the exception of a core of battle hardened veterans, most of the forces facing the onslaught of the Allies were poorly trained recruits, while the well trained Allied forces were steadily gaining experience that will offset even the advantages possessed by the more experienced German forces.

Conclusion:

I think that often, we think that wars are simply about machine against machine or man against man. But modern wars are states against states, armies against armies.

States that are better organised economically will win over an economically inefficient enemy.

Armies that have good enough weapons that can train enough men well enough to man those weapons, will win over an enemy that possessed superior weapons but insufficient men to men them competently.

Being a bigger country with more resources will not automatically mean you will win. Considerable logistical and organisational skills are needed to build an Army such as the US Army. I would argue that the Allies possessed superior skills in these areas, which allowed their armies to overcome the initial German qualitative superiority, until their armies were sufficiently experienced in combat to overcome even that.

[Easy C.]

Basically because they should never have attacked Russia.

[Jani.R]

Basically because they should never have attacked Russia.

And wait for them to attack them?

[Easy C.]

Basically because they should never have attacked Russia.

And wait for them to attack them?

thats why they lost.

[Oxley]

Nazi Germany got their capabilities and their ambitions mixed up.
They had to go into Russia to get oil to fuel their armour/planes. So they couldnt of sat around and waited.

Should of Gone to England at the first possible chance to remove that threat, then focused on Russia.

[Easy C.]

Still, even though we were occupied with the Japs, and I guess so was America, Nazi Germany had too many enemies to contend with. I dont know of any logical reasons why they should have won.

[strumbird]

Operation Barbarossa.

[ogukuo72]

:lol: I've another one: Operation Bleu.

[Kitsune]

It's simple: Germany lost because of too many opponents. That, in a nutshell, is the reason.

Were there mistakes made? Yes. The most fundamental two were: Hitler did not foresee that Britain and France would declare war on Germany, and only Germany, after the attack on Poland. Because of this, Germany found itself in a war for which it was completely unprepared (but that may have been just the reason, France and Britain chose force to remedy the situation because they thought they would solve the problem militarily with reasonable certainty).
The second: Hitler should have switched Germanies industry to total war production the day after Barbarossa started. That way the apex of production that was reached only in Summer of 1944 could have been reached in Spring 1943. And, all other things being the same, the Soviet Union would most probably have lost the war at the end of that year.

"He should have never attacked Russia" or they "should have attacked Britain first" are nice statements, but quite wrong. Britain was not the big problem. It could not do very much. Even if one had conquered it...what if Stalin would have attacked just then? The Soviets had, even according to German assumptions, around 15.000 tanks, 4 times as many as the Wehrmacht. (Actually is were more). And they were building new ones at an alarming rate. (and it was similiar with planes and artillery pieces and other war material)
Plus: Germany was depending on Soviet oil supply and the oil production of Romania. The first would have stopped in case of a Soviet attack, and Romania would have been among the first Soviet targets. But with the Soviet Union out of the picture, the war would have been over. Hitler could have turned towards Britain or Egypt for a more indirect approach. Its even possible that Britain would have sued for peace that would have been the easiest way out, since he only had asked for the ceasing of hostilites and had never demanded surrender from Britain until then (assuming that he had not changed his mind).
So, to go after the Soviet Union was no strategical mistake. To believe that it was basically beaten at the end of 1941 and that all that was left to do for 1942 was a kind of coup de grace, that was.

Of course Germany made more than just two mistakes. But not only by Germany. Actually, Germanies enemies, France and Britain (in Summer 1940) as well as the Soviet Union (in the second half of 1941) made each mistakes of a severity that Germany simply could have never afforded to make. They were saved by there size and geographical advantages that Germany does not even have.

Germanes strategic positioning was the most difficult of all war parties. It is a comparatively small country in the heart of Europe, was sourrounded by potential enemies and unreliable friends. It has no ample supply of raw materials. It is no island. It had no colonial Empire of note (the, rather modest one it aquired largely for prestige reasons was lost at the end of WWI). And it entered the war unprepared.That it took the largest military conflict mankind has ever seen to bring it down is a testimony to the quality of its armed forces, which were, wether in regard of its soldiers, its officers or nco's, its highest leadership or the equipment it used, second to none.

[Para]

Basically they fought on to many fronts against to many countries. Although they had a great head start in producing armament's, and equipment, they just ran out of time. In the finish Russia was out producing them in tanks guns and planes, well what can we say about America's effort on all this, the arsenal of democracy. Well once they threw them selfs behind the war war effort with every thing they could muster, then the Germans days were numbered. The massive area bombing did do great harm to German manufacturing industries, they often state that after a big air raid that they soon back to about 80% of normal production in months, but this did mean that they were still down 20% and had not increased their output which would have been the case if all this bombing had not taken place .

[Kitsune]

Para wrote:Basically they fought on to many fronts against to many countries. Although they had a great head start in producing armament's, and equipment, they just ran out of time.

Interestingly any people seem to believe that. But when did Germany have a head start? Actually: never. It's true that Hitler incraesed armament...but only to get from the miniscule Reichswehr which numbered scarcely over 100.000 soldiers, basically infantery only, a tiny maritime force and no Air Force at all to a level of armament that was about the same size of the one of France and Britain respectively. In 1939 the Germany spend actually slightly less for its military than France or Britain. In Summer 1940 the French forces were beaten not because they had no tanks...they had actually more tanks than the Germans (not that the difference in numbers was great but...).

The idea of a Germany that had a headstart with armament or even being a nation that is "completely militarized" (well the Nazis liked military style parades...but so did Mussolini) while France and Britain were "disarmed", peaceful nations (with grand aspirations and huge colonial empires...) is something what many seem to believe even today. Probably the after-effects of war time propaganda or something.
Ask your local historian about the matter.

[Ruledbyjames]

There are many reasons why they lost. The previously stated ones were too many enemies,lack of resources etc etc...... Another reason was that they couldnt simply keep replacing their losses. Like Japan they looked good at the start but couldnt replenish. Hitler also becoming a mad man not allowing the 6th army to pull out of Stalingrad was also a massive blow (granted not war ending). Or not allowing the his panzers ( 12th ss) notably to act on D-day from the start was ridiculous. This would of caused havoc on the beaches ( thank god for that). They were handicaped by their Fuhrer and this in the later years become a massive hinderence to the officers of the Wehrmacht.

Allied air superiority later in the war was able to blow all the advanced German jet craft ( Me-262) to smithereens before they left the ground.

The V2 would have been far more effective if it was aimed at military targets and not as its German name means Vergeltungswaffe 2 or reprisal weapon 2. Could of caused major problems for the massive build up of ships for D-day.

The Soviets had, even according to German assumptions, around 15.000 tanks

Were not many of these tanks completely obsolete? Golorified tin cans left over from ww1.

Well we can thank God that we can have this disscusion instead of hoe did the allies lose.

Regards
Ruledbyjames

[Kitsune]

Were not many of these tanks completely obsolete? Golorified tin cans left over from ww1.

No. Actually about none of them were from WWI. Soviets had quite dangerous tanks. The Soviet KV-1 tank was better armored and had a larger gun than every German tank of that time.
And the German army had no Panthers of Tigers yet (which were build to counter soviet tanks especially T34's and Stalintanks). Pzkw I was extremely lightly armored and amred (largely decommisioned by the start of Barbarossa). Pzkw II was still quite light, Pzkw III was never an overly good design. Both made up the bulk of the German tank force, the star being Pzkw IV which was (then) a moderately heavy tank (much lighter than the KV-1 however). The T34 however existed already (in the East of the SU) and should be considered superior to most Pzkw IV types.
German successes in 1941 were because of surprise, better training, better communication (all German tanks had radio communication and here the Soviet Union was clearly inferior), German tactical brilliance and Soviet tactical non-brilliance. And for the last one man is more responsible than anybody else: Joseph Stalin. His terror regime had turned the Soviet officer corps in a bunch of yes-sayers and his personal orders in 1941 had devastating effects for the battlefield.

[Weasel]

Because of him:

http://www.chronik-berlin.de/images/photos/a_hitler.jpg

[b33f]

Because of him:

http://www.chronik-berlin.de/images/photos/a_hitler.jpg

A Hitler double?

[Weasel]

Because of him:

http://www.chronik-berlin.de/images/photos/a_hitler.jpg

A Hitler double?

Just the first picture I found. ;)

[oregongrunt]

outproduced

[strumbird]

Were not many of these tanks completely obsolete? Golorified tin cans left over from ww1.

No. Actually about none of them were from WWI. Soviets had quite dangerous tanks. The Soviet KV-1 tank was better armored and had a larger gun than every German tank of that time.
And the German army had no Panthers of Tigers yet (which were build to counter soviet tanks especially T34's and Stalintanks). Pzkw I was extremely lightly armored and amred (largely decommisioned by the start of Barbarossa). Pzkw II was still quite light, Pzkw III was never an overly good design. Both made up the bulk of the German tank force, the star being Pzkw IV which was (then) a moderately heavy tank (much lighter than the KV-1 however). The T34 however existed already (in the East of the SU) and should be considered superior to most Pzkw IV types.
German successes in 1941 were because of surprise, better training, better communication (all German tanks had radio communication and here the Soviet Union was clearly inferior), German tactical brilliance and Soviet tactical non-brilliance. And for the last one man is more responsible than anybody else: Joseph Stalin. His terror regime had turned the Soviet officer corps in a bunch of yes-sayers and his personal orders in 1941 had devastating effects for the battlefield.

Agreed. German tanks were inferior or less powerful than many of their adversary (Matilda, Char B, T-34, KV-1, KV-II...) but their superior tactics win the battle. Don't forget that the Germans have Pzkw 35(t) and 38(t) in large numbers also.

[strumbird]

The V2 would have been far more effective if it was aimed at military targets and not as its German name means Vergeltungswaffe 2 or reprisal weapon 2. Could of caused major problems for the massive build up of ships for D-day.

Regards
Ruledbyjames

My 2 cents. The V2s are a waste of valuable resources. They are inaccurate and expensive to produce. Hitting military targets are difficult. They require hundreds or thousands of V2s to successfully destroy a target. Their guidance are based on trajectory and time. Targets have to be large to be hit like London and Antwerp. Resources should be have been better used for developing "better" jet bombers. Ar-234 is a terrible jet bomber. The V1 are a waste of valuable resources too.

[Para]

Hitler had started to rearm shortly after he came to power. How do you think that they got all those planes, guns and tanks. France only had a handful of modern aircraft, and even fewer front line tanks. The British tanks although well armoured were woefully under gunned, Britain started the war with about 600 front line fighters, and lost quite a chunk of these in France during 1940. As far bombers went every thing that we had was already obsolete, even the Wellington when that came out in 1940 was already obsolete. Hitler had planned for the war to start around 1944 when he had built up all his services to match any one in the world and he was still building up his Navy when the war started and he was not in a position to take on the Royal Navy due to numbers game.

[Kitsune]

@Para

Para wrote:Hitler had started to rearm shortly after he came to power.

Well, yes Para. Germany was not allowed to have a true army which could stand against, let's say France, much less Soviet forces after WWI. And of course Hitler wanted to change that, and any patriot supported him there. (What would you do if Britain had lost its Empire after WWI, and would be forbidden to have armed forces exceeding 120.000 men? And no Air Force? If a strong man would appear and stated that he wanted re-arm the British forces to the size of Germanies and Frances, would you think that's a just cause?)
France for example had invaded Germany in 1923. (Do you remember THAT?) Its army occupied parts of the Rhineland and Germany (the democratic Germany) with its Versailles treaty mini army could do nothing. The Franch action was completely against any international law. Great Britain, the defender of Justness and Freedom, naturally declared war on France. Just kidding, the British protested faintly and did nothing of course. Then France propagated the sundering of Germany: the Rhineland and Bavaria should secede. An idea was that these regions could unify with Austria, form a catholic German state and escape the reparations...all under the wise patronage of France. The economic implications of the French behaviour were so dire that they finally withdraw their troops, however.
In 1935 this had not been forgotten. Nor other threats by the French or by the Poles to invade Germany. And that's why every nationalist German wanted to have an strong army that could defend against that.

The German armed forces of 1939 were not larger than the French ones or the British ones. The Germans had an army about the same size of the French, far larger than the British one. The French had a larger fleet than the Germans, the British fleet was far larger (wasn't it even the largest of the world or was the US fleet bigger?) Germany had the largest Air Force, but combined the French and the British could match that. And that all does not include the soviets, who were the primary enemy and whose army and Air Force were far larger than the German one.
No one back then thought that distribution of froces as unatural: the Germans had, as usual the French and the Soviets to cope with (possibly at the same time) and therefore concentrated on Army and Air Force. hitler never had an overly large interest in a fleet, and the idea to get back the lost colonies was rebuffed by him (he did not want trouble with the British or French). The British wanted still to rule large parts of the world and therefore had a giant fleet. And since ships cost a lot, the army had to be rather small. The French wanted a strong army and a strong fleet.

Were the German army more modern? Well since nearly all of their stuff had been build after 1935 it was modern. But the common myth that the French and the British had completely outdated stuff is just that.

Frankly, if you have lived back then, that should be a field of your expertise: what was the feeling in 1939 and first half year of 1940 in Britain? "Oh God, the Germans with their hyper-modern equipment...they will tear us to pieces, we do not stand a chance!" or "If the Krauts attack Fance we will nail their hides!" ???
I wasn't born back then, but according to the books the French military was convinced that their army was better, and the British were proud of the BEF which was seen as the most modern force. Only after Dunkirk people started to call them "outdated" or something.


Para wrote:
Hitler had planned for the war to start around 1944 when he had built up all his services to match any one in the world and he was still building up his Navy when the war started and he was not in a position to take on the Royal Navy due to numbers game.
Sry, but this is a complete myth. Hitler had no master plan (he was an improviser all his life) and certainly non to attack the west, especially not Britain. He tried to arrange himself with the British, any attack on them was a mistake because they are were the "brother-people" in his eyes.
Its complete speculation when and even if he had started a war against anyone after Poland. Actually...he had a hard time doing so. To the East was the Soviet Union, to the West France. If he attacked either of them, the other could strike his back. And to increase armament? Well even during the war the Nazis were the LAST to do that...in 1943 (the British went for total war from 1940 on)! And they had every excuse to do so from September 3rd 1939 on. But they did not because Hitler feared for his popularity.
If he was so hesitating over years of war to increase armament...that suggests that he had not done so in peace time (if France and Britain had not declared war on him 1939).
Sry.

[gadzook]

Sry, but this is a complete myth. Hitler had no master plan (he was an improviser all his life) and certainly non to attack the west, especially not Britain. He tried to arrange himself with the British, any attack on them was a mistake because they are were the "brother-people" in his eyes.
Its complete speculation when and even if he had started a war against anyone after Poland. Actually...he had a hard time doing so. To the East was the Soviet Union, to the West France. If he attacked either of them, the other could strike his back. And to increase armament? Well even during the war the Nazis were the LAST to do that...in 1943 (the British went for total war from 1940 on)! And they had every excuse to do so from September 3rd 1939 on. But they did not because Hitler feared for his popularity.
If he was so hesitating over years of war to increase armament...that suggests that he had not done so in peace time (if France and Britain had not declared war on him 1939).
Sry.


Garbage. Garbage. Garbage.

In Mein Kampf Hitler declared that: "The external security of a people in largely determined by the size of its territory." If he won power Hitler promised to occupy Russian land that would provide protection and lebensraum (living space) for the German people. This action would help to destroy the Jewish/Marxist attempt to control the world: "The Russian Empire in the East is ripe for collapse; and the end of the Jewish domination of Russia will also be the end of Russia as a state."

Hitler planned all along to conquer the entire planet for his 1000 year Reich. Says so right in his book. Hitler in Mein Kampf says very plainly that Germany will only be a great nation when it acquires a much larger territory in Europe, which includes France and Western European countries.

[sethen]

Germany lost WWII because they were weak and not ruthless enough.

[Kitsune]

gadzook wrote: Hitler planned all along to conquer the entire planet for his 1000 year Reich. Says so right in his book.

The whole planet? Really? And where does he say that?

Hitler in Mein Kampf says very plainly that Germany will only be a great nation when it acquires a much larger territory in Europe, which includes France and Western European countries.
True, Hitler says that Germany needed severe territorial expansion to be a world power. But his expansionism was directed Eastward:
And so we National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath the foreign policy tendency of our pre-War period. We take up where we broke off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze toward the land in the east. At long last we break of the colonial and commercial policy of the pre-War period and shift to the soil policy of the future.
If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can principally have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states.
(Mein Kampf, Chapter XIV)
He goes on to explain why the communist Russia just ripe for plucking. Interestingly, both communism and national-socialism saw the other as the ultimate rotten developement state of a society. :lol:
But no talk about a war against Britain and not even France. Actually nowhere in the whole book. No garbage.

[Ruledbyjames]

I believe many of the Soviets tanks were still obsolete by 1941. I agree with the point you made Kitsune that they had been producing better,T-34 for a great example. But a good tank needs a good crew to operate it. Another main reason the panzer divisions did so well was because of the lack of Soviet training. While the germans had inferior tanks at that time they had better crews.

Germany lost WWII because they were weak and not ruthless enough.

eh sorry I hope your joking. Tell that to the Jews and millions of other people they murder. Having death regiments to "cleanse" entire towns. Thats pretty god damn ruthless.

regards
ruledbyjames

[Para]

Kitsune
One of the first things Hitler did was to tear up all those treaties and start rearmament. Now I was around in 1939, so I can remember the thousands of German planes which often came to visit. I can remember the land mines that they dropped which would remove whole streets, I can remember the Butterfly anti personel bombs which carried all sorts of sensitive fuses and where designed to kill and maim any one that got near them, then there were the millions of incendiary bombs that they dropped just to stoke up the fires. There where all the latest types of sea mines from pressure to magnetic which where liberally scattered around our coast lines. The Pocket Battleships where against treaties but he built them any way, he practised area bombing in Spain and the pilots learnt their trade in this civil war. Now France had very few Battle Tanks as such and many of the tanks they did have dated from WW1. The French Air Force had very few modern fighters and their air force was just swept away, that is why they kept pleading to Britain to send them more fighter planes in 1940. Also what about that German slogan at this time to quote "Guns Before butter" for years Germany had been working to-wards producing vast amounts of armament's, and it does not matter how you try to dress this up it is still a matter of fact.

[Bryson C]

outproduced

x2. In a nutshell. Plus Germany's enemies had greater populations.

[strumbird]

Germany lost WWII because they were weak and not ruthless enough.

eh sorry I hope your joking. Tell that to the Jews and millions of other people they murder. Having death regiments to "cleanse" entire towns. Thats pretty god damn ruthless.

regards
ruledbyjames

X2. Including murdering hundreds to thousands of Allied prisoners of war. Russian villages were torched. "Final Solution" is ruthless.

[ogukuo72]

There's a good book entitled "Why Germans Lose at War" by Kenneth Macksey. It's an interesting read.

Basically, Macksey proposed that Germany had had a bad habit of overextending themselves, primarily because of their persistent underestimation of their enemies.

This overextension, combined with a contempt of the mundane science of logistics and an overemphasis on offensive warfare, led to a rapid exhaustion of German resources at the very time when they were faced with enemies who had formed alliances against them.

The Germans in WW2 were perhaps lulled into a false sense of their own superiority, not only by a sense of racial superiority, but also the deceptive ease by which the French - traditionally their strongest enemy - was defeated in six weeks in 1940.

The Germans were also perhaps lulled into the false idea that a new concept of warfare - the blitzkrieg - could truly overcome a numerically and materially stronger enemy through superior war fighting tactics and technology. This myth ultimately led them to emphasise too much on quality and not enough on quantity, and to pick fights with enemies such as Russia and the US, which they should have left well alone.

[soma]

Germany lost because of the scat man.

[anselmo1]

Fighting a two front war did Germany in. They absolutely underestimated the total number of troops that the USSR had in reserve. In addition, the T-34 tank on the eastern front made a huge difference from late 1941 on.

[Ruledbyjames]

Yes the constant underestimating and belief that they were unbeatable did lead them into situations that could have been avoided

The Germans in WW2 were perhaps lulled into a false sense of their own superiority, not only by a sense of racial superiority

yeah this is true cause when the Kv's and T-34's came to ruin the Germans day they were amazed how ineffective their anti-tank guns were. Only the 88mm could do the job or taking them on at very close range and firing to the rear of the tank.

Blitzkrieg was effective in France and the other countries but in a country the size of Russia, supply lines and resources get streched too far. It all just runs out of steam.

[gadzook]

In 1935 this had not been forgotten. Nor other threats by the French or by the Poles to invade Germany. And that's why every nationalist German wanted to have an strong army that could defend against that.

Were the German army more modern? Well since nearly all of their stuff had been build after 1935 it was modern. But the common myth that the French and the British had completely outdated stuff is just that.

Frankly, if you have lived back then, that should be a field of your expertise: what was the feeling in 1939 and first half year of 1940 in Britain? "Oh God, the Germans with their hyper-modern equipment...they will tear us to pieces, we do not stand a chance!" or "If the Krauts attack Fance we will nail their hides!" ???
I wasn't born back then, but according to the books the French military was convinced that their army was better, and the British were proud of the BEF which was seen as the most modern force. Only after Dunkirk people started to call them "outdated" or something.




November 16, 1936, the Luftwaffe began an all out bombing campaign in Spain. Your points about the Germans not having any capacity to wage war in the mid 1930's are not valid. They killed thousands of innocent civilians in large urban areas.

This also debunks any theory you have about Hitler not having any ambition on conquering Western Europe. I could site many other examples if you wish.

Pablo Picasso's Guernica(1937), painted to depict the horror of GERMAN AGGRESSION AGAINST INNOCENT SPANISH CIVILIANS IN 1936
http://img257.echo.cx/img257/3007/picassoguern4fo.jpg

I could also site examples of Germans killing Portugese, in Portugal, if Spain is not far enough to the west for you.

[Easy C.]

Germany lost WWII because they were weak and not ruthless enough.

errr.....no....

Many people im sure will disagree about the whole "not being ruthless enough" option you've brought up.

[Kitsune]

@gadzook

Gadzook wrote:

November 16, 1936, the Luftwaffe began an all out bombing campaign in Spain. Your points about the Germans not having any capacity to wage war in the mid 1930's are not valid. They killed thousands of innocent civilians in large urban areas.

This also debunks any theory you have about Hitler not having any ambition on conquering Western Europe. I could site many other examples if you wish.

Pablo Picasso's Guernica(1937), painted to depict the horror of GERMAN AGGRESSION AGAINST INNOCENT SPANISH CIVILIANS IN 1936


Nazi Germany send a contingent of "volunteers" to Spain to support Franco. The so called "Legion Condor" consisted of about 100 planes (a significant part of them transport planes) and 5000 soldiers (because of rotation all in all about 20.000 German soldiers fought in Spain). They did not start a "all out bombing campaign" in November 1936, they attacked usually military targets in a quite precise way. With the notable and infamous exception of the small town Guernica, which was bombed on the morning of April 26th 1937. About 1500 of the inhabitants were killed. Something to be ashamed of, that's for sure. But during the World War the systematic destruction of cities and the killing of its civilians would be taken to a whole new level. A certain nation on the "good" side would make this basically the cornerstone of its strategy until events on the ground made it senseless. But the bombing would still go on. Considering this, one really wonders why Guernica has become so (in)famous. Probably because of the painting.


Your points about the Germans not having any capacity to wage war in the mid 1930's are not valid. Nazi-Germany was able support Franco in the Spanish Civil war with a task force. Even that would have been impossible only 1 year earlier. A war with France was out of the question in 1936.

This also debunks any theory you have about Hitler not having any ambition on conquering Western Europe. Does it? They have supported Franco, which is hardly a conquest. The British for example have supported the Whites in the young Soviet Union in the earlier 20ties. Does this mean that they wanted to conquer Russia? (And the Whites were for a good part a brutal bunch, who murdered and pillaged and raped...but then so were the Reds)
And there was never an attempt by Nazi-Germany to conquer Spain, wasn't there?


I could site many other examples if you wish.

Oh dear... :|

[gadzook]

From 4:30 to 7:45 in the evening the Huns poured an uncontested, continuous rain of bombs and gun fire on Guernica. Normal procedure would have been to observe the fall of the bombs and record the exact location of their explosion, yet there are no reports of accuracy for this mission. Villagers who were not immediately killed fled to the fields to take refuge, only to be ravaged by plunging machine gun fighters.

Approximately 1,700 of Guernica's 5,000 inhabitants were killed or wounded. The fires that engulfed the city burned for three days. Isolated farms as far away as four miles were bombed. Juan Silliaco a survivor of the attack recalls, "The air was alive with the cries of the wounded. I saw a man crawling down the street, dragging his broken legs. . . . Pieces of people and animals were lying everywhere . . . . In the wreckage there was a young woman. I could not take my eyes off her. Bones stuck through her dress. Her head twisted right around her neck. She lay, mouth open, her tongue hanging out."

Although the Condor Legionnaires were the best trained and most experienced airmen of the Luftwaffe, they failed to score a single hit on the bridge, the presumed target. The dubious intent of the mission is evident; it was wanton, man-made holocaust. In 1945 in an American hospital Von Richtofen's diary was recovered. In his diary he states that the "concentrated attack" on Guernica "was the greatest success".

I see what you are trying to do with your posts. You are trying to somehow legitimize what your forefathers did. To do this, you quickly say well...The Russians were worse. Or that the Germans really were not that bad. The answer is, yes they were that bad, they were horrible, horrible soldiers. Some of the worst to ever walk planet earth in the entire history of mankind.

There is no way to defend anything that the Third Reich ever did. Not one thing they did is defendable. NOT ONE. You need to understand that because it took millions and millions of lives for your countrymen to get it through their thick skulls that they were wrong.

[thedragonandhistail]

Germany was defeated because of the production and scientific superiority of the allies. We could build things faster and get them into battle. Many of Hitlers secret weapons were built because of desperation, and they never could have effected the outcome.
For those of you who are arguing over the German tanks being superior, dont forget that the Tiger tanks were expensive and difficult to build, let alone deploy in numbers on the battlefield. The Panther tank had transmission problems throughout the war. The T34 and M4, although being technically inferior on paper to the german tanks, could be built by the tens of thousands, crews trained very quickly to man them, and then mantained on the battlefield.

[mudbunny]

Well, to try and sum it up in a short manner...................
1. Germany attacked Russia too soon, fighting a war on two fronts was too much.
2. Hitler's total Narcissistic personality did not allow him to properly delegate responsibilities. He had great leaders, but he did not trust anyone but himself. If he would have totally trusted Rommel with the defensive strategy, things would have been much more difficult for the allies.
3. they put all of their eggs into one basket by loading up the atlantic wall in Normandy. If they would have used a moderate force on the bluffs and kept the large part of their troops to lie in wait a few miles inland, they could have pushed the allies back into the Channel, but Hitler wanted fixed fortifications on the beaches which, while being impenetrable, made for large targets.
4. The allies had total air supremecy on D-day, which gave the guys on the ground one less thing to worry about.
5. Exterminating 5 million Jews may have looked great to Hitler on paper, but there was one large problem with that, those Jews that he killed made up a large part of the intellectual community, so when he wanted long range missils built, he didn't have the scientists with the knowledge or ability to come up with those designs fast enough because he had killed them already, and as we know, time is money, or shall we say defeat.

To put it simply, Hitler wanted too much too fast and he wasn't willing to give any of his commanders the leeway to do it themselves. Why? Because he was totally and completely ego-centric, it was his way or no way. And justly, he committed the final act of a coward, and committed suicide, and now he's burning in hell for what he has done.

[mudbunny]

Germany lost WWII because they were weak and not ruthless enough.

*shakes head in disbelief*
I have three books for you son......................
1. "D-day" by Stephen Ambrose
2. "Citizen Soldiers" by Stephen Ambrose
3. "Hitlers Mistakes" by Ronald Lewin

I think after reading these, your views will change greatly.

[mudbunny]

Germany was defeated because of the production and scientific superiority of the allies. We could build things faster and get them into battle. Many of Hitlers secret weapons were built because of desperation, and they never could have effected the outcome.

*I totally disagree, the German's did not get these weapons working until it was much too late, but if they would have had them earlier, it would have greatly complicated the allies ability to build up an invasion force in England because it would have been raining V2 rockets, and it would have forced the allies to come up thru Itlay which would have created a bottleneck for any land based invasion force, playing right into the hands of Rommel.*


For those of you who are arguing over the German tanks being superior, dont forget that the Tiger tanks were expensive and difficult to build, let alone deploy in numbers on the battlefield. The Panther tank had transmission problems throughout the war. The T34 and M4, although being technically inferior on paper to the german tanks, could be built by the tens of thousands, crews trained very quickly to man them, and then mantained on the battlefield.

*The German tanks were MUCH more effective than the American Sherman or any of the other tanks that the allies used. American tanks were famous for catching on fire due to the thin armor that was used. They were faster than the Tigers or Panthers but that doesn't really mean much to a tank crew if they can shoot accurately.*

[Lokos]

1) American tanks did not catch on fire because of the thickness of their armor.

2) The main German tank (the PZIV series) was not in any way 'much more effective' than either the Sherman or the T-34. They were direct analogs.

3) The Tiger and the Panther were never produced in enough numbers to make any strategic difference.

Lokos

[RomanS]

atacking Russia is a mistake for anyone

can't defeat her

never

[Jani.R]

atacking Russia is a mistake for anyone

can't defeat her

never

And what did Germany do against it in 1918? :roll:

[foxtrot023]

atacking Russia is a mistake for anyone

can't defeat her

never

And what did Germany do against it in 1918? :roll:

Not to mention the Crimean War

[CoRe]

atacking Russia is a mistake for anyone

can't defeat her

never


Well no, because youve got millions of fools which run into machingun fire without a weapon and if they return, they will be shot from own officers. Great!

The generals should have been fighting the war without Hitler and some things would be different today. Hitler was crazy and he had no clue of fighting a war.

But, it was good that he lost. A defeat of the allies would have been devastating for the world.

Anyway, what Germany has done with its resources and limits, no other country will manage that!

They walked through Europe without any problems.

I cant tell what i want in english, i'm sorry...

My english is bad i suppose :/

[VISTREL]

atacking Russia is a mistake for anyone

can't defeat her

never


Well no, because youve got millions of fools which run into machingun fire without a weapon and if they return, they will be shot from own officers. Great!

you watch too many movies, get lost! rofl rofl Don't get me wrong, Enemy at the Gates is a nice movie...Vasiliy Zaitsev really killed bunch of worthless nazis, but everything else is exaggerated.

As far as 1918, germans got their asses kicked once again...just because they moved in to Ukraine doesn't mean they've won....if you judge like that so germany must have won the USSR in 1941-45 :oops: :D

Crimean War was war fought against russian peasant. After that, russian czar abolished russian feudal system.

[Roger Rabbit]

atacking Russia is a mistake for anyone

can't defeat her

never


Well no, because youve got millions of fools which run into machingun fire without a weapon and if they return, they will be shot from own officers. Great!

you watch too many movies, get lost! rofl rofl

As far as 1918, germans got their asses kicked once again...just because they moved in to Ukraine doesn't mean they've won....if you judge like that so germany must have won the USSR in 1941-45 :oops: :D

Crimean War was war fought against russian peasant. After that, russian czar abolished russian feudal system.
Russia lost the Crimean war, the war with Japan 1905 and World War 1.

[VISTREL]

if you did not understand - Roman said - noone could ever conquire Russia.

Japan war - yeah, Russia stopped expansion to the east. Later, in WW2 they would push japanese back in Eastern part of Eurasia...

World War One - by the end of this war, Russia became a new state(Revolution of 1917) with civil war raging between communists and white russians. At that time, they weren't worrying about WW1 and ****. By the 1945, when thing got back to normal, most of Eastern and part of Central Europe was under control of Soviet Union woot woot

During the Russian Civil War - Americans, British, French tried to help the white russians to defeat the Bolsheviks but got their asses kicked.

[foxtrot023]

if you did not understand - Roman said - noone could ever conquire Russia.
Japan war - yeah, Russia stopped expansion to the east. Later, in WW2 they would push japanese back in Eastern part of Eurasia...

World War One - by the end of this war, Russia became a new state(Revolution of 1917) with civil war raging between communists and white russians. At that time, they weren't worrying about WW1 and ****. By the 1945, when thing got back to normal, most of Eastern and part of Central Europe was under control of Soviet Union woot woot

How about the mongols?

[VISTREL]

they were also defeated (Kulikovo Field, etc.then Ivan the Terrible finally united all of the states)...well, after 200 years..better than never!

Btw, it wasn't Russia back then as we see it today. It was Moskovite state the size of Ukraine or less...

[Ruledbyjames]

American tanks did not catch on fire because of the thickness of their armor

eh sorry to tell you but your wrong. The Germans nicknamed the Sherman tank the "Ronson" (a cigarette lighter) because it would go on fire when hit. The crew casualties were higher then other tanks of its class. They estimated it would take 3 Shermans or 2 Churchills to take on a Tiger.

As far as 1918, germans got their asses kicked once again

That was only because they were starved into submission by the british and Americans.

scientific superiority of the allies

Eh in some areas yes and in others no. The allies won on the development of the Nuclear bomb but the germans were ahead with jet propulsion. The had successes in different fields.

[foxtrot023]

American tanks did not catch on fire because of the thickness of their armor

eh sorry to tell you but your wrong. The Germans nicknamed the Sherman tank the "Ronson" (a cigarette lighter) because it would go on fire when hit. The crew casualties were higher then other tanks of its class. They estimated it would take 3 Shermans or 2 Churchills to take on a Tiger. actually 5 shermans per tiger

As far as 1918, germans got their asses kicked once again

That was only because they were starved into submission by the british and Americans. don´t forget the french

scientific superiority of the allies

Eh in some areas yes and in others no. The allies won on the development of the Nuclear bomb but the germans were ahead with jet propulsion. The had successes in different fields.

[Easy C.]

atacking Russia is a mistake for anyone

can't defeat her

never

rofl

Your a such a Russian. :lol: ;)

[ogukuo72]

There might be a point to this. Russia has never been occupied by a foreign power for a length of time. Perhaps it is just too vast, and the weather just too unpleasant. Most modern invaders, such as Napolean and Hitler, find themselves in very unhappy situations after some initial victories.

At the same time, let's not forget that when Russia or the Soviet Union tried to expand or attack in their turn, they were usually defeated. In 1905 by a supposedly third-rate Asian power, Japan. Between 1914 and 1917 by the Germans in a series of battles. In 1920 at Warsaw. The Russian or Soviet armies were not only stopped cold, they were very badly defeated.

This lead to one of the great "what ifs" of history. What if Hitler, instead of ordering an attack against Russia, had waited for Russia to attack first?

What if a whole series of massive defeats had been inflicted on the Russians by the Germans in Poland?

And following those defeats, when Russia had been destroyed its best armies in futile attacks against skillfully conducted German defenses, Hitler had then went on the offensive?

Would Russia had held on, or would the communist regime had collapsed as the imperial and republic governments had collapsed after similar military defeats in WW1?

To me, this is a highly probable scenario. The Soviet Union, instead of becoming a superpower, would have become a twenty-year foot-note to history.

[mudbunny]

1) American tanks did not catch on fire because of the thickness of their armor.

2) The main German tank (the PZIV series) was not in any way 'much more effective' than either the Sherman or the T-34. They were direct analogs.

3) The Tiger and the Panther were never produced in enough numbers to make any strategic difference.

Lokos

really?
What the hell usually causes a tank to catch on fire? If it has sufficiant armor then it is less likely to turn into a rolling candle, ala the Sherman tank.

[ogukuo72]

Sherman tank's tendency to flame had to do with some of its design features.

First, it used petrol rather than diesel. Diesel has a lower likelihood to flame up.

Second, its ammunition racks were located where enemy fire was most likely to hit. "Wet" storage bins reduced the likelihood of the ammunition cooking off, but they do not solve the problem of the vulnerable locations.

Having said that, if you look at any books on tank warfare, you will see plenty of examples of brewed up tanks of all types and nationality, so all tanks could go up in flames, not just the Sherman. It's one of the unpleasant hazards of being a tank crew member.

I believe that the only tanks that I don't remember seeing brewed up was the Tiger II, and that might be because they ran out of fuel all the time!

[Lokos]

1) Ogukuo has mentioned some of the reasons why the Sherman would 'brew up'. Armor thickness has nothing to do with it, apart from letting the AP penetrate in the first place.

2) Russian armies on the offensive have been victorious as often as not. None of you seem to understand that WW1, WW2 and the Russo-Japanese war are not the only wars Russia has ever fought in.

This lead to one of the great "what ifs" of history. What if Hitler, instead of ordering an attack against Russia, had waited for Russia to attack first?

Considering that the RKKA was optimized for offensive action, and the Wehrmacht was also optimized for offensive action, that would not be good for the Germans.

The Soviets would have attacked in mid-late 1942. Most historians agree that, at that point, following the reorganization of the command structure and the refurbishment of the armored forces of the Red Army, the Wehrmacht would have been doomed.

Not many people understand this, but Hitler chose EXACTLY the right moment to attack the Soviet Union. Twelve months later he would have been mauled - and quickly.

Lokos

[ogukuo72]

You have a point there Lokos. Given the offensive-mindedness and expansionist policy of the Germans, it is highly unlikely they would have just sat around and waited for the Russians to attack first.

I still believe, though that the Germans would have been in a better position if they had defended instead of attacking.

1. The Germans would not have worn themselves out over the huge distances and poor transport networks of Russia.

2. They would be fighting in much more favourable climate and terrain.

3. The Germans' disadvantages in logistics would have caused less problems over the shorter distances. They would have been much closer to their Romanian oil fields.

4. It would have been much easier to draw on their reserves and defend Central Europe given the central location of Germany.

5. It would have been easier to destroy the Red Army through encirclement as it attacked, considering that as the Red Army attacked through Poland, rather than trying encircle it over vast distances in the Russian interior.

6. Once the Red Army had been decisively defeated in Poland and a full scale pursuit launched on the fleeing elements, it would have been much more difficult for Stalin to rally the troops and people behind his failed regime.

7. Much of the Red Army proved to be ill-prepared, ill-trained and ill-equipped. Might the situation have improved by mid-1942? Perhaps. But if it was the same 1941 Red Army that had gone on the attack against the 1941 German Army, unspoilt by the disastrous 1941 winter, the results might very well be a German victory.

[Vorster]

Hitler was one of the main reasons why they lost the war. If he had listened to his generals whe may have seen a different end. He had no choice but to attack russia. At a recent confernce at our armor school some guys brough papers from russia sugesting that russia was ready to attack germany. That was why the germans sliced through them in the first part of barbarossa. Theu were deployed for an offensive not an defence mobile forces up and in collum. At the end of the day the germans also still would have lost because an inferior resource set and manpower. The resources they would have scored in russia would only have lasted so long.

[Lokos]

Vorster:

Blaming Hitler for everything has been the favorite pastime of every German General who lived into the 50's. From Manstein to Guderian etc. When Hitler was gambling and opted for risky manoeuvres in Poland, the Low Countries and, most notably, France - they were more than happy to share in the credit following victory. When he gambled and lost in Russia (and there are reasons why he couldn't have conceivably won at all) they washed their hands of him. That's just unprofessional, IMHO. German Generals made plenty - plenty - of mistakes in the field, without drawing Hitler into the equation at all.

Ogukuo:

Interesting points.

1) A battle in Poland would surely have been more intense (less logistical wear and tear). Whether this would have been good for the Germans is debateable, especially considering that the supply situation was not the primary reason for the failure of Barbarossa.

2) How was the terrain in Poland more favourable? Climate, perhaps, but that swings both ways. It's not as if the Russians didn't have severe problems in the winter of '41 due to the cold, just like the Germans.

3) And those Romanian oil fields would have been within the range of Soviet tactical bombers (well within that range) had the Soviets initiated hostilities. Again, though, logistics were only part of the reasoning behind the failure of Barbarossa.

4) Okay.

5) Actually, the smaller confines of Poland are less conducive to Kiev-style encirclements than, for example, the Ukraine or the steppes of the East generally. And, if you'll note, German doctrine emphasised encirclement in attack, not in defence. Furthermore, it is difficult to envision the same tricks that worked against a smashed rabble to work against a motivated, well trained Soviet army on the offensive (with the chain of command properly re-established).

6) That's a big 'once'. I would hesitate to assume that the Wehrmacht could have defeated the Red Army on the offensive in 1942, and so do historians like Dunn, Erickson, Glantz and Forster.

7) Well, if that same Army of 1941 hadn't been caught with its pants down, Barbarossa may have turned out very differently in the first place. The Soviets RKKA of 1941 was probably the best trained of the lot until the army that blossomed into existence in 1944 and 1945. Given until 1942, that army could have devastated the Wehrmacht on its own terms.

And the winter of 1941 was more disastrous for the Soviets than for the Germans, really. After all, carefully husbanded reserves were wasted on a crappy general offensive that didn't do a damned thing, while the Germans dug in and weathered the storm very well.

Lokos

[Vorster]

touche well made point. :oops: The germans were just bound to loose a protracted war because of the scale of germany compared to the world

[Para]

It was found that reason that the Sherman Tanks would burst into flame so quickly was not to do with the petrol, but with ammunition storage. It was found that if steel ammunition bins were placed to in the to store the shells in, it would stop the small red hot shards of shrapnel penetrating the shell casing and lighting up the ammunition.

[Minardiau]

What I think caused Germany's loss in WW2 bit of reading in this

1. Weak Navy. The failure to finish force Z which would of included 800 units, consisting of 13 battleships and battlecruisers, 4 aircraft carriers, 15 Panzerschiffe, 23 cruisers and 22 so called "Spähkreuzer" which were basically large destroyers. This would of given Germany a navy to counter the British Blockade. Combined with the ships of the Italian Navy could of swayed the navel balance in the Axis powers favour

http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/ good link on Z plan

2. The German failure to destroy the British forces in France. This core of battle hardened troops proved invaluable in training up a huge army. Which would later prove decisive in Africa.

3. The lack of a strategic bomber force to destroy British industry

4. Lack of a co-ordinated production of vehicles, planes ect due to political interference. Look at the many different tanks and planes the germans used througout the war. This would of been a major blow to operations. Due to the huge different parts that were required by the many different Panzers, Panthers, Tigers, STUGIII's ect. Think of the resources wasted in the manufacturing of all the different parts when these factories could of been used to manufacture more planes and more tanks. (the allied approach)

5. The complete lack of oil. The countries that did have oil and with whom the Germans were allies (Romania) were weak. Had no industry to speak of and were to close to the Eastern Front which meant come 1944 Germans have lost their supply of oil to power their tanks, planes, ships.

6. The lack of a co-ordinated battle plan with allies. There was no Joint Chain of Command structure with Italy. When they did combine their operations the Germans and Italians performed brillantly as shown by Rommel work in Africa. There should of been a command structure with a German in charge, Italian as say navy commander, German Air Commander, German Land Commander ect ect.

7. Due to Hitlers interference and mistrust of Generals due to his ww1 service. Generals were not given a free reign. Unlike the allies who pretty well much told their generals to "attack here use what you need" Hitler kept his generals on a tight leash. Hampering aspects of the operations. the Germans waiting for hitler to wake up to send in the reserves at Normandy a prime example. When Generals were given a free reign, they done what Generals are supposed to do. As evidenced by Rommels sucess in Africa.

8. Alot of decisions especially in the East were carried due to idealogical reasons and not strategic or tactical reasons. The treatment of the Ukraine. 40 odd million people would of been more then happy to fight the Russsians had the Germans used them in this way. Instead of being occupiers they should of been liberators. Instead of driving on Moscow they diverted to Stalingrad. If Stalingrad had of been called Volgagrad like it is now the Germans would not have attacked it the way they did.

Thats all I can think of at the moment [/list]

[Lokos]

Minardiu:

Interesting points.

1) I'm sorry, but the 'British Blockade' didn't do a damned thing to Germany in WW2. You might be confusing it with WW1. Germany was not starved into submission or choked of resources.

2) That stipulates that the North African theatre was in some way decisive. Three Afrika Korps' worth of men and material were destroyed every month on the Eastern Front during periods of relative quiet. NA was, I'm sorry to say it, a sideshow. It didn't lose the war for Germany, that much is certain.

3) Why is British industry that important?

4) Greater numbers of vehicles require greater amounts of fuel, and many more trained crews. For the Germans, both were in short supply. They had to emphasise quality vs quantity, because they certainly did not have the quantity.

5) Actually, Germany had great amounts of synthetic oil. Despite the loss of Romania in 1944, German tanks, factories and planes kept working. Manpower was a far more serious issue.

6) Perhaps. But it sounds more like a 'what if' than a plausible possibility.

7) Hitler was not a fool when it came to the military. People need to stop believing this. He made bad decisions, but so did his Generals. Yet his good decisions seem to have been forgotten by nearly everyone, while the opposite is true for the Generals.

8) Silly. If they'd driven on to Moscow, they'd have smashed right into the entire strategic reserve of the RKKA. And if you thought the fighting in Stalingrad was hard, try urban Moscow, where there was no way to interdict reinforcements, supplies or enemy tanks from arriving. Stalingrad was the less bloody choice, IMHO. And it really put the Russians to the test during the crisis period, as they shifted almost a million men from the Moscow reserve and other fronts for Operations Mars, Saturn and Little Saturn..

Lokos

[Zarathustra]

Hitler was a good politician but a bad military srategist, thats why. He never listen his general during the war because of his arrogance.

[Ruledbyjames]

And if you thought the fighting in Stalingrad was hard, try urban Moscow,

No I believe it wouldnt of been worse. If Moscow was in danger of falling the fighting would have been bloody but not as bad as Stalingrad. Stalin couldnt let the city fall because it was named after him and Hitler became obsessed with the city. He didnt put up as big a fight when they reached Moscows tramline. So what makes you think it would have been as terrible? Remember there can only be one Pavlovs house :)

[Frank Discussion]

8) Silly. If they'd driven on to Moscow, they'd have smashed right into the entire strategic reserve of the RKKA. And if you thought the fighting in Stalingrad was hard, try urban Moscow, where there was no way to interdict reinforcements, supplies or enemy tanks from arriving. Stalingrad was the less bloody choice, IMHO.
Lokos

But the Wehrmacht would have been able to fully encircle Moscow, something they could never do with Stalingrad, so the city could be, theoretically, cut off much more effectively then Stalingrad. I won't speculate on how much of a difference this would have made, as I'm not aware of how much resupply the Red Army actually was able to recieve across the Volga.

Interesting thread though...

[Lokos]

Could they have, though, Frank? The 6th Army, which was constituted by most of Germany's remaining 'deemed offensive-capable' divisions would have had to face not only the forces directly guarding Moscow, but the million strong manpower strategic reserve of STAVKA. I am not certain that they could have even broken through Moscow's defence in depth, let alone encircled the entire city.

Lokos

[Lokos]

Ruledbyjames:

You're confusing '41 with '42. If you think the Russians fought hard for Stalingrad, you had best believe they would have fought thrice as hard for their capital. In '41 they fought savagely to stop Operation Typhoon, and that is exactly why it failed. Why would they fight less savagely in '42, when they had finally built defences in depth (expecting an offensive to take the city) and deployed some million reservists?

The Germans would have been outnumbered anywhere between 3 and 4 to 1 AND on the attack (with all the disadvantages that imposes).

I hold that Stalingrad probably cost Germany less. Had the 6th Army been destroyed around Moscow, instead of in Stalingrad, the entire AGC could have collapsed in a localized Soviet counter-offensive.

Lokos

[ogukuo72]

In 1941, it had been a close run thing around Moscow, basically a race between the Germans trying to reach Moscow, the Soviet reserves from Siberia trying to move up into position, and, of course, the weather.

While urban fighting in Moscow might not be any less savage than the fighting in Stalingrad, there is a true political significance to Moscow. Taking the capital city would have been a huge blow to the prestige of Stalin and the Communist Party. After twenty years of political oppression and economic mismanagement, both were not exactly popular with the people. A huge political blow like this would very likely lead to the fall of both.

By 1942, things were already very different. The relative Soviet successes during the winter counter-offensives of 1941-2 had restored much of the prestige of the Red Army, Communist Party and Stalin, allowing the regime to restore its balance and confidence.

Even as early as 1942, the racist and brutal policies of the Nazis towards Slavs had become evident, and any possibility of support from the Russian or Ukrainian people was lost.

By 1942, the German armed forces had already been diminished by the losses during the winter of 1941-2. While still formidable, they were probably not in a position to repeat their dramatic successes in the summer of 1941.

Finally, of course, Stalingrad was not a city of true political significance before the fight, other than its name. Capturing it would not have had much political impact, even for Stalin. It only became politically significant when the Germans decided to fight for the city, and the Russians decided that they could not give it up. It then became a deadly struggle of will.

I am convinced that even if Stalingrad had fallen in the initial rush, and the Germans had continued on towards the Ukrainian oil fields, they would eventually become over extended with stretched flanks, making it even more difficult for them to defend against the Soviet counter offensives that would cave in their flanks and encircle vast numbers of Germans.

In short, taking Moscow in 1941 might have ended the war with a decisive German victory and German hegemony of Europe. Taking Stalingrad in 1942 would not.

[VISTREL]

lol, if you see the map Germans already had Ukraine :oops:

and btw, Stalin was very popular (among free people, not counting prisoners, and criminals in Gulag)...after his death, all of red square was crowded and my grandmother told me that they were crying and trully were sad. I see that another western propoganda BS is trying to change the history...

I understand that west is against tyranny, and I am for that too...but changing facts is not right...

[Lokos]

In short, taking Moscow in 1941 might have ended the war with a decisive German victory and German hegemony of Europe. Taking Stalingrad in 1942 would not.

I would agree with this statement.

Besides, by November it didn't matter whether the Germans occupied the city or not. It was Operation Saturn that doomed the 6th Army, not the fighting inside the city. Well, at least not directly.

Lokos

[Frank Discussion]

Could they have, though, Frank?


It's a good question. Upon further thought, I doubt it. Look at the difficulty in holding the flanks around Stalingrad. It would have taken many more to completely encircle Moscow, and the flanks would have been just as vulnerable to a Red Army counterattack. As you mentioned, given the reserves STAVKA held, this surely would have occurred. The precedent was already set by the encirclement at Demjansk. No reason this couldn't have occured on a larger scale (Moscow) during the winter of 1941-1942.

Tossing my two cents into the arena, I think the Eastern Front was settled after "Citadel". As devastating as the surrender of the Sixth Army was, Manstein managed to piece Army Group South back together and avoid the larger encirclement of the forces in the Caucasus. "Citadel" didn't serve any tactical purpose, it was merely a salient. Hitler himself had misgivings about this offensive, Guderian as well. The tactical initiative passed solely into the hands of the Red Army after "Citadel", nowhere to go but back.

[Minardiau]

I was ignoring what actually happened in WW2. I was focusing on what Germany should of done.

Can someone tell me why Africa was not important?

If the Axis had of defeated the british in Africa. Then they have access to unlimited oil and the ability to launch a 2nd front against Russia at a time when Russia was at it's weakest. Also it raises the possibility of the axis taking India.

Lets get one thing straight. It doesent matter how many men are involved in a battle. The amount of men involved means nothing. What is important is the strategic implications of the battle or campaign.

The Spartans in Thermoplye is the evidence that backs this up. If that battle did not occure then there is no way the Athenians would of had time to evacuate the city, and for the Greeks to organise an effective counter to the Persian threat.

I say again. Look at the map of N Africa, Europe, Asia. Then look at where the battles are taking place. Also look at the resources in these areas. And how close they are to Russia. I just can not believe that people ignore just how important the campaign in Africa was.

[ogukuo72]

I would agree with you. Too many people think Africa was a side show. In a way, it was, but it was a very important side-show.

There are several factors to consider:

1) as you pointed out, if the British had lost Egypt, they might have lost Palestine, then Iraq, then Persia, and Russia's southern flank would be open. While I think it is a long stretch to believe that the Germans would be able to accomplish this, it remained a strategic possibility, and it was important for the British to hold on to the Middle East, rather than abandon it.

2) as you pointed out, the oil fields of Persia and Iraq were strategically crucial to the Allied war effort and must be protected.

3) control of the Suez Canel was also of strategic importance to the Allied cause

4) while the Afrika Korp might be relatively small compared to the mass armies of the Eastern Front, they were still useful manpower. Even more importantly, the Axis massively reinforced their forces in Tunisia after Operation Torch in Nov 42, at a time when these forces would have been very useful in the struggle around Stalingrad. And let us not forget that eventually, 275,000 Germans and Italians surrendered in Tunisia. While not all Germans, this is a very large pool of manpower that could have made the difference on the Eastern Front. These troops might well have strengthened the flanks at Stalingrad, or be used in counter attacks to relieve Stalingrad.

5) not many historians seemed to have touched on the air struggle over Malta in 1942 and its impact on the Eastern Front. Over an epic six months in 1942, the British barely held on to Malta as an airbase as Spitfires fought Me-109 in a virtual repeat of the Battle of Britain. The Luftwaffe found it necessary to divert squadrons from the Eastern Front to the Med, including the critical dive bomber and medium bomber units. These units could well have made a difference on the Eastern Front.

6) Many have noted that Stalingrad was the graveyard of the Luftwaffe transport arm. But this was not the only graveyard. The desperate attempts by the Luftwaffe to reinforce Tunisia also severely crippled the transport force, especially as the Allies still held on to Malta and was able to used it as a base to intercept Luftwaffe transports. This definitely contributed to Germany's increasing logistic difficulties.

7) Stalingrad and Tunisia also contributed to a decline in the quality of Luftwaffe pilots in general, because flight school personnel and aircraft were diverted to the Stalingrad and Tunisia relief efforts. The flight instruction staff and aircraft were decimated over the skies of Stalingrad and Tunisia. The Luftwaffe training system never recovered from these disasters, and Luftwaffe pilot quality begin to drop dramatically in 1943 and 1944, as less well trained pilots begin to replaced pilots killed in the Allied bombing onslaught in 1943-4.

8) with the fall of the whole of North Africa, it was only time the Allies attack Italy. German troops had to be diverted to guard Italy, another serious diversion of resources from the crucial front in the East. While some historians have argued that the Allies actually tied up more of their manpower in Italy, especially infantry, which could have been better used in 1944 in France and Belgium, the fact remained that the Allies were better able to afford such a strategy.

9) let us not forget that because the Allies were keeping the Med alive as a theatre of operations, the Germans had no choice but to station troops in the southern flank of Europe as well. They had to occupy Vichy France, Italy, Greece, Crete and the Balkans. Again, how much of an impact would these troops have had in Russia in 1942-4 and in France in 1944?

10) finally, Italy surrendered in Sep 43. Many historians have dismissed this as unimportant as the Italian armed forces had more or less ceased to be an effective fighting force by then, and the Germans were able to rapidly occupy Italy. But politically, this was disastrous for Germany. They had lost one of the first three Axis partners. An unhealthy precedence for defection when the war situation turned had been set. The other Axis partners (except for Japan) would follow suit one by one.

[VISTREL]

In short, taking Moscow in 1941 might have ended the war with a decisive German victory and German hegemony of Europe. Taking Stalingrad in 1942 would not.

I would agree with this statement.

Besides, by November it didn't matter whether the Germans occupied the city or not. It was Operation Saturn that doomed the 6th Army, not the fighting inside the city. Well, at least not directly.

Lokos

I have to disagree...the common misconseption is that if you loose the capital - the morale is broken, and the war is lost. In 1812 when Napoleon came, Russians left Moscow and set it on fire...when Napoleon came there expecting someone from Moscow bring him the keys of the city - nobody came. Russians gathered their forces at some other place and finally were able to drive them out.

[Turhapuro]

During the Russian Civil War - Americans, British, French tried to help the white russians to defeat the Bolsheviks but got their asses kicked.
Sad thing to russians. White Russia + France + Britain would have had balls to stop Hitlers expansion at the first place. No Molotov-Ribbentrop-pact because great powers would have been old allies from WW1.

[Turhapuro]

I have to disagree...the common misconseption is that if you loose the capital - the morale is broken, and the war is lost.
But wasn't Moscow quite big hub for example railroads? What it would have done to logistics?

[Igor01]

I have to disagree...the common misconseption is that if you loose the capital - the morale is broken, and the war is lost.
But wasn't Moscow quite big hub for example railroads? What it would have done to logistics?

It was a railroad hub of strategic importance (still is). Defending it was to be done at any cost, that's why Stalin stayed in Kremlin to boost the morale of the defenders.

The 1812 situation was different, St. Petersburg was the capital at the time, well the primary capital at least and Napoleon's campaign was nowhere near the savage brutality of "total war" Hitler waged on USSR.

The similarity between the two wars was the fact that the patriotic drive was so strong among Russians (Soviets) that neither Napoleon nor Hitler stood a chance. Nazi's pretty much would have had to kill off the majority of the population to "win" the war. Another thing that Hitler could not have planned for - the Soviets achieved an impossible feat by moving a lot of industry to Urals during their retreat, the majority of the war factories were well outside of reach of the German bombers.

[MaDuce]

Germany lost the war of production againest the allies.

[thedragonandhistail]

I read somehwere that another key point in the defeat of Germany is the US and USSR to put many of its best officers into the engineering and logistical branchs. Germany put its best officers into the tactical branchs.

That explains why the Germans seemed to win the battle but lose the campaigne, and ultimatly the war.