Why did Germany lose World War II?

[ljadw]

What would need to be the degree of material superiority over Britain in 1940 required to force them to surrender?

An airforce with 10,000 heavy bombers blowing all their major cities?

Did the fleet of bombers force Germany to surrender, or Japan?

Precisely!

Strategic bombing cannot win wars on their own.

Germany would need to occupy Britain, Canada and India, before Churchill would surrender.

Germany would need "only" to occupy Britain

[ljadw]

But what has me curious and perhaps off topic is at times it seems you might be an economic major, yet when numerous data and history is present, IMHO mostly it appears that at times you are basing most responses in a pro-German way, which is fine and i have no beef about, but to be truly an educated student or place facts regarding history, taking sides and attempting to show data as to Germany triumphing in almost every post, be it economics, industry, finance, resources, etc. and not showing that it could be possible that data or submissions to this forum might not be correct or have the merit to justify or acknowledge that one might be incorrect scares me. Not so much scares as frightening that an educated person can not see different views or aspects, when shown that the thoughts or views sought might be wrong.

I only show one view because there is only one reality. I show the view that I think it is the correct one.

There are social scientists that try to show all the views about a subject matter. There are social scientists that try to show only the theory that they think it is the correct one.

What is my view on the matter?

That:

1- Germany was the second most powerful economy in the world in the WW2 time frame. And that their measure of superiority in warmaking potential between then and the third and fourth largest industrial powers (Britain and the USSR) was higher than conventionally though nowadays (in the 1940's people had more generous impressions of Germany's economic might).

2- That Germany's war effort utilized less intensively the economic resources available to them than the Allies (US, Britain and the USSR did). That was for several different reasons. The most important were:

2.1 - Much of Germany's resource pool were not in the Reich itself but in occupied territories, and it is more difficult for an government to utilize the resources outside their historical territorial domain. While for the Allies, their resources were in their traditional domains, and hence could be utilized more fully.

2.2 - Germany was the one of the world's leading producer of machinery and capital goods in general before WW2, and hence, they had a vast stock of capital goods (specially machine tools). Their manpower wasn't large enough to supply their industry with 100% utilization of existing industrial capacity. The Allies had more manpower than machines, and hence, utilized their industrial capital in their total potential.

2.3 - That Germany's war effort was less efficiently run than the Allied war effort.

3- That the German armed forces were the most effective military in the world during the time frame of WW2.

When people express different views in this matter, I always put my view on my posts.

1)if there is only one reality,that thus NOT mean there is only one view :roll:
2)your point one :no,Germany was not the second most powerfull economy,and besides,that's not determining .
3)your point 2.1 :no ,it is the opposite:the resources of Germany were greater than the resources of the occupied countries that Germany could use for its benefit.
4)your points 2.3 and 3. are only a repetition of the old myth that Germany could win ,but failed because of the stupid Hitler .
5) your point 3. is also meaningless:
a) what is 'the most effective military'?
b)it is not so that having the most effective military,will resulting in winning the war
c)these most effective military won only ONE decisive battle:against France
d)why were the German military more effective than the British,the US,the SU.
All your posts are founded on 2 dogmas(=prejudices):that the German military were the most effective in the world and that the US were no good at war ;for you there is only one view:yours and all the others are wrong,that is a totalitarian attitude.

[LWD]

1- The BOB proved that the Wehrmacht couldn't defeat the RAF the same way that 1943 proved that the Allies couldn't defeat the Luftwaffe.

They didn't? Really? The results weren't felt until March 1944, but the Luftwaffe by the end of 1943 was most definitely defeated...unless the Allies decided to halt operations entirely for some reason.

Well, even in 1944 the Allies were suffering constant and heavy losses when bombarding Germany, agaisnt enemy fighters. In that sense, they failed to win air superiority in 1943, as the Germans failed to win air superiority in 1940.

No. The Germans plan called for defeating the RAF in the BOB. By the end of 1940 it was clear that they had failed. On the other hand the allied effort in 1943 was longer term and more wide reaching. In any case they were establishing air superiority on a frequent basis and in 44 had established air supremacy. So your analogy is badly flawed.

Or that the Vietnam war proved that the US couldn't defeat North Vietnam.

Sorry, but it "proved" nothing of the sort. The result of the Vietnam War was a US defeat, but that isn't proof that they couldn't defeat them.

Yes. I was being sarcastic. Next time, when I am being

I mean that Vietnam is as much proof that the US couldn't defeat Vietnam as the Battle of Britain is a proof that Germany couldn't defeat Britain.

No again. The combat results from Vietnam clearly indicated that a military victory was possible and very likely given the political will to do so. Indeed the VC were destroyed and the North was willing to go to the negotiating table to get the US out.

2- Germany could resist the entire military of Britain, easily.

Why yes, the most likely result one-on-one, would be stalemate, the two nations strengths were matched by weaknesses.

I would give a 60% chance of stalemate and 35% chance of German victory and 5% of British victory.

And we should care what odds you assign why?

...What is my view on the matter?

Again, unless you can make a decent case for them why should we care?

1- Germany was the second most powerful economy in the world in the WW2 time frame. ...

That's certainly not the impression I've gotten from my reading on the topic. Indeed Tooze and others have pointed to fundamental weaknesses in the German economy.

2- That Germany's war effort utilized less intensively the economic resources available to them than the Allies (US, Britain and the USSR did). That was for several different reasons. The most important were:

That seems rather inconsistent with the figures related to resources devoted to the civilian economy quoted in some of the previous discussions on this matter.

2.1 - Much of Germany's resource pool were not in the Reich itself but in occupied territories, and it is more difficult for an government to utilize the resources outside their historical territorial domain. While for the Allies, their resources were in their traditional domains, and hence could be utilized more fully.

What exactly do you mean by "traditional domain"? In any case what you are describing is a typical situation when a land power confronts a naval power.

2.2 - Germany was the one of the world's leading producer of machinery and capital goods in general before WW2, and hence, they had a vast stock of capital goods (specially machine tools).

In the case above it is far from clear that A implies B.

Their manpower wasn't large enough to supply their industry with 100% utilization of existing industrial capacity. The Allies had more manpower than machines, and hence, utilized their industrial capital in their total potential.

The allies may better use of their whole labor pool. The Germans didn't utilize a significant portion of theirs.

...
3- That the German armed forces were the most effective military in the world during the time frame of WW2.

Without a good clear definition of effective the above is meaningless. Clearly by late war it was not the case.

When people express different views in this matter, I always put my view on my posts.

Facts and logic to support them would be nice. Repeated posting of questionable "views" doesn't accomplish much.

[helitech]

Pure numbers

2. Lack of raw materials - to produce fuel - subs - Jets - tanks

No, #2 is a hint they shouldn't have fought the war they tried to, rather than a reason they lost.

My reasons:
1. abysmal strategy. This includes AH, natch, but also the single-service chiefs and lower.
2. appalling intelligence, both in terms of collection and analysis.
3. irresponsible neglect of logistics (which is NOT the same as limited resources) at all levels.

I think we mix our strategy in the field with the HQ strategy , when HQ disregards intel from the field reports .
Most of the irresponsibility falls on the shoulders of the upper staff .War planning is an unpredictable chain of estimates , logistics is of no use when you have no fuel for rolling stock - how much land will we occupy ? . When it comes to pure opponent A against B , the germans ran a more efficient system , lacking access to resources .

[Guaporense]

What would need to be the degree of material superiority over Britain in 1940 required to force them to surrender?

An airforce with 10,000 heavy bombers blowing all their major cities?

Did the fleet of bombers force Germany to surrender, or Japan?

Precisely!

Strategic bombing cannot win wars on their own.

Germany would need to occupy Britain, Canada and India, before Churchill would surrender.

Germany would need "only" to occupy Britain

Churchill was quite stubborn. Mainstein said that he would continue to prosecute the war from Canada if Britain was occupied.

[ljadw]

Hm:who is Mainstein ?
I know this (public) statement from Churchill,but it is only boasting,unless you think that without Britain (unsinkable air-carrier ) Overlord would be possible .
Another proof of Winston's boasting :when FDR asked him to send the fleet to the US,if Sealion succeeded,Churchill refused with the argument,that in this case,there would be another government (Hoare as PM) which would use the fleet to obtain better peace conditions ?

[bf109 emil]

Churchill was quite stubborn. Mainstein said that he would continue to prosecute the war from Canada if Britain was occupied.

Churchill made this known in his speech June 4 1940...although Canada was not mentioned, IMHO i believed he did mention taking the fight to Germany from Canada if and had the British heirachy had been forced to evacuate..

...Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

complete speech here...http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/s ... he-beaches

[Guaporense]

Ah, Manstein.

Overall, without the US overlord wasn't possible and Britain didn't give up even without the US in their side for about 18 months from the fall of France.

[bf109 emil]

Ah, Manstein.

Overall, without the US overlord wasn't possible and Britain didn't give up even without the US in their side for about 18 months from the fall of France.

how do we determine whether Britain would have landed in France or another locale if the Germany had not declared war upon the USA and rather support a British landing under lend lease as differ from having US personnel land...I do suppose the term and historic refrence to Overlord would not have taken place, but IMHO neither would Britain have stood idle if and had the US not had war declared upon them by Nazi Germany.

But it is a valid point, that Nazi Germany, being at the pinnacle of her power, and being aided greatly by the Soviet Union, whilst Britain stood alone, still failed and had not the resources to press or pose a defeat upon Britain. Thus even with the huge advantage in manpower, resources and labor, the failure of Germany to produce a victory over Britain can be looked upon as their biggest blunder.

[ljadw]

Ah, Manstein.

Overall, without the US overlord wasn't possible and Britain didn't give up even without the US in their side for about 18 months from the fall of France.

how do we determine whether Britain would have landed in France or another locale if the Germany had not declared war upon the USA and rather support a British landing under lend lease as differ from having US personnel land...I do suppose the term and historic refrence to Overlord would not have taken place, but IMHO neither would Britain have stood idle if and had the US not had war declared upon them by Nazi Germany.

But it is a valid point, that Nazi Germany, being at the pinnacle of her power, and being aided greatly by the Soviet Union, whilst Britain stood alone, still failed and had not the resources to press or pose a defeat upon Britain. Thus even with the huge advantage in manpower, resources and labor, the failure of Germany to produce a victory over Britain can be looked upon as their biggest blunder.

I should not say it was a blunder, I think the reason of the failure was they had not the means to do it .

[Guaporense]

Ah, Manstein.

Overall, without the US overlord wasn't possible and Britain didn't give up even without the US in their side for about 18 months from the fall of France.

how do we determine whether Britain would have landed in France or another locale if the Germany had not declared war upon the USA and rather support a British landing under lend lease as differ from having US personnel land...I do suppose the term and historic refrence to Overlord would not have taken place, but IMHO neither would Britain have stood idle if and had the US not had war declared upon them by Nazi Germany.

They would be hard pressed to survive without the 10 million tons of shipping delivered by the US annually. They couldn't achieve the needed numerical superiority without the US manpower.

[quote~]But it is a valid point, that Nazi Germany, being at the pinnacle of her power, and being aided greatly by the Soviet Union, whilst Britain stood alone, still failed and had not the resources to press or pose a defeat upon Britain. Thus even with the huge advantage in manpower, resources and labor, the failure of Germany to produce a victory over Britain can be looked upon as their biggest blunder.[/quote]

Without the US, the Allies lose 2/3 of their troops in Western Europe. How they would invade Western Europe without 2/3 of their historical forces? Britain wouldn't also be able to obtain air superiority and wouldn't be able to build merchant ships to supply their troops (you need merchant shipping to be able to supply troops across bodies of water).

Without the US, Britain is neutralized as an decisive force in WW2. They would be reduced to their symbolic

They can defend their island quite well agaisnt air attacks. Good, Britain proved that they had better air forces than Greece and Yugoslavia.

Also, it is true that starting a war agaisnt the USSR before defeating Britain was a major strategic blunder. However, that was because the US could have used Britain as an base to attack Germany. With a Nazi Britain the US cannot land in the continent.

Why does Hitler decided to attack the USSR before ending the war with Britain? Because the whole reason of starting WW2 was to get Soviet land (lebensraum). He simply didn't care as much for Britain as he cared about defeating his arch enemy, Stalin.

Tooze makes the argument that the attack on the USSR was made for purely rational reasons and was mainly as a means of reaching an end. The end was to get the natural resources of the USSR to fight a war of continents with the US and Britain. Hitler attacked the USSR because it could be defeated in a blitzkrieg, while Britain would need several years of military buildup to maintain air and naval forces capable of defeating Britain's.

It is true that Germany didn't focus on ending the war with Britain in part because they would need several years of military buildup before they could challenge them. The fact is that Hitler was not patient enough to end the war in the west before starting another war in the east.

[ljadw]

To write the following:"it is true that startingawar against the SU before defeating Britain was a major strategic blunder "is a ...blunder ,unless you can prove that there was an alternative (a serious one);Barbarossa was a gamble,caused ,essentially,by the desperate military situation of Germany .

[glenn239]

Germany's military situation was not desperate before Barbarossa.

[ljadw]

yes it was :they had no means to defeat Britain,the US were helping Britain(LL),a war with the US was approaching(Willkie,the GOP presidential candidate,would follow the same foreign policy as Roosevelt),I don't see a possibility for Germany to win against that combination .
Germany was also becoming more and more dependant on the SU for food and raw materials .If the SU stopped the deliveries,what then ?
On the other hand,the combination of Britain and the US was(from Hitler's POV) not strong enough to defeat Germany :the SU was indespensable.The only chance for Germany to be able to sustain a long war against Britain and the US ,was to eliminate the SU:politically by having the SU as an ally,or,if this was impossible,militarily by eliminating the SU.
It was a big gamble,but there was no alternative;time was running against Germany (in fact,from 1st september 1939)

[bf109 emil]

Guarpenese wrote'

It is true that Germany didn't focus on ending the war with Britain in part because they would need several years of military buildup before they could challenge them. The fact is that Hitler was not patient enough to end the war in the west before starting another war in the east.

i.e. because he couldn't and never had the strength even at the pinnacle of his power

patients had nothing to do with this, as he could have been as patient as ever, he would never have forced a decision on the Atlantic, nor had the ability to land an army.

Without the US, the Allies lose 2/3 of their troops in Western Europe. How they would invade Western Europe without 2/3 of their historical forces? Britain wouldn't also be able to obtain air superiority and wouldn't be able to build merchant ships to supply their troops (you need merchant shipping to be able to supply troops across bodies of water).

aw but ships where being built, but it is a good thing the superiority of sea travel, shows the British needed and constructed merchant ships as opposed to the simplistic plan of Germany attempting the same fate using towed river barges, oh wait, they never had the chance as the Luftwaffe was laid a licking by a much superior RAF

They can defend their island quite well agaisnt air attacks. Good, Britain proved that they had better air forces than Greece and Yugoslavia.

yes and unlike Germany which allowed it's cities to be falttened by the RAF, Britian never had this worry as inferior LW planes could never, nor ever had the ability to do the same...I guess they did flatten a defeated Warsaw, and Undefended Copenhagen and and unopposed Belgrade, but in a foe which was defended, they where handed a trumping as could be found in Malta, Britain, Sicily, NA...

Without the US, Britain is neutralized as an decisive force in WW2.

yup and without Check armaments, Romanian oil and Swedish iron ore and Russian aid in the first 18 months, Germany would have not come close to defeating Britain...oh wait they did have these resources and still failed...

Also, it is true that starting a war agaisnt the USSR before defeating Britain was a major strategic blunder. However, that was because the US could have used Britain as an base to attack Germany. With a Nazi Britain the US cannot land in the continent.

of course and even though they tried and numerous LW pilots where soon interned or found floating in the channel, even this simple logic eluded German hierarchy and narrow thinking laid their hats before them...but alas even had Germany defeated the BEF in the Middle east, this might have resulted in the removal of Churchill and Britain coming to terms, but again Germany's bumbling and defeat allowed the British empire to continue flattening German cities much to the surmise and inability of the LW to prevent this, or retaliate on the same terms with an inadequate and poorly trained LW and bombing force