World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mistakes

[Dark Age]

Hello, in this thread I want to talk about the common parochial mistakes people make when discussing military strategy in the Second World War. I feel many people have an elementary understanding of certain topics during the war which prevents them from seeing the more important issues. For example, they compare Napoleon's invasion of Russia with Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union and state that because the former failed, the latter failed for the same reasons. Such comparisions are a gross simplifications, totally incorrect and fail to address the principal reasons for success or failure. In World War Two, where nations of many millions waged war against another, success or failure depended on decisions on a grand strategic scale which is why I get irksome when people focus on more parochial, irrelevant things such as Germany's aerial bombing of London as principal reasons for the Axis defeat. Here I will address common views of WW2 that I view as mistakes.

COMMON WORLD WAR TWO VIEWPOINTS THAT ARE WRONG:


1: THE GERMANS LOST THE WAR IN 1939

Incorrect. Such statements are claims that the German defeat was inevitable. They fail to recognize that Germany was winning the war until late 1941. France was smashed, Britain was too weak to invade Europe on its own, and the Soviet Union was in the process of being bled to death. Germany lost the war on Dec 11, 1941 when Hitler declared war on the United States while his armies were engaged in Russia. That single act decided the war because it forced Germany to fight another opponent with awesome industrial capacity, western technology and which contained a population of around 140,000,000 and furthermore was safe from fighting a war on its own soil thus its production could not be molested. The huge population of the USA meant it could , in time, mobilize armies of many millions which would tip the balance in the allies favor.

2: HITLER WOULD HAVE WON THE WAR IF HE LISTENED TO HIS GENERALS

Nope. So he should have listened to the same generals that told him not to occupy the Rhineland? The same generals that told him not to expand in 1938? The same generals that told him that Germany was not ready for war in 1939? The same generals who in 1939-40 came up with a rehash of the German 1914 invasion of France which would have likely cost Germany tremendous casualties for an indecisive result? Hitler had to , in fact, go outside his general staff to lower generals like Manstein to get a workable plan to deliver a knockout blow against France. Many of his generals were unimaginative and too fixated on convential warfare with the occupation of enemy cites rather than Hitler who prefered to attack an enemy's resources.

Having served in the army and studied history, I now can better understand Hitlers reluctance to listen to his generals. Many officers lack imagination and think too parochially. Napoleon was a brillant officer and great tactician but he failed to grasp things on a strategic level. He invaded Egypt and, by doing so ,wasted men and material which could have better been used in Europe where France faced more deadly threats. Wars in Europe are settled in Europe so seizing Egypt would have done nothing to bring the British Empire to its knees. Napoleon foolishly occupied Spain and then invaded Russia believing he could win against a country of that size in a convential battle. His tactial brillance meant nothing against Grand Strategy where a coalition of powers outnumbered him close to 3 to 1. Even if Napoleon would have won a Waterloo, he would have been defeated by sheer mass of numbers. Napoleon is the perfect example of a tactical officer failing because he refused to grasp strategy.

Officers during the Second World War and even today are generally no different. Hitler understood better what Napoleon didnt. Wars are about resources and population. And wars in Europe are settled in Europe, hence his reluctance to invade Britain and commit to Africa since such attacks would have done nothing to gain Germany living space to expand the its resources and population, two things which matter most in wars between technologically even powers.

Furthermore in the case with Russia, Hitler was for the most part correct in his military decisions. Russia was unlike central and western Europe were towns were in close proximity and thus a defensive position could be abandoned in favor of another defensive position close by. In Russia , defensible postions were far apart hence Hitlers reluctance to allow a retreat. Hitler decision to hold the line in Dec 1941 was to prove correct and logical.



3: THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN WAS A BRITISH VICTORY

Nonsense. The term "Battle of Britain" was invented by Winston Churchill since he needed any victory he could get in July 1940. The Battle of Britain was simply an aerial battle were all that happened was the British defended their air space successfully. It was not a great British triumph but merely a triumph of survival. Overall, on the Strategic Level, the aerial battle was a stalemate. Although Germany could not win air supremacy over the British Isles, the Brtish were cornered and could not invade or gain aerial supremacy over German occupied Europe. Hence the Battle was not a British victory but a propoganda attempt to hide the fact that the British were in a hopeless situation.


4: HITLER SHOULD HAVE FINISHED OFF THE BRITISH FIRST

Not logical. Hitler attempted to finish off the British first.. it was called the Battle of Britain. All that happened was both sides lost a lot of planes and airmen. A German aerial assault on the British in 1941 or 42 or 43 would have yielded the same results. Attacking through the Mediterrean would also not have brought the British to their knees. Remember to settle a war in Europe you have to win the war in Europe. A large scale Mediterrean/African campaign would have been a waste just like Napoleons invasion of Egypt. The logical enemy to attack was the Soviet Union who had over 3 million troops amassed opposite of Germany's LAND BORDERS and whos territory could expand your population and increase your resources.

An attempt to finish off Britain would have cost too many German casualties ( troops Hitler needed for Russia), tie up too many German troops in occupation(whether in the British Isles or elsewhere) and simply would have taken too long... probably until 1945-46 and by then the USA and Soviet Union would be at war with Germany. Also Hitler knew that the British, just like in the Napoleonic Wars, could not invade Europe hence why Hitler left only 600,000 troops in Western Europe during Barbaroosa

5: HITLER'S INVASION OF THE SOVIET UNION WAS A GREAT MILITARY BLUNDER

Wrong. It was objectively the most sensible option for an imperialistic Germany bent on conquest. Its territory had the capacity to turn Germany into a GLOBAL SUPERPOWER. The Soviet Union, with its massive army, was the greatest threat to Hitler as it stood directly on Germany's Land Borders. The ideological differences between the two meant war was practically inevitable and, as I already explained, finishing off the British first would take too long and be too costly hence invading the Soviet Union was totally logical.

History was on the Germanys side too. Historically the Germans and their allies defeated the Russians in 1917-18 while fighting the Italians, French and British on other land fronts. In 1941, Hitler had no European land fronts to fight on. The Soviet failure to conquer Finland and Stalin's purges made 1941 seem like a great time to strike. Because of the Soviet Union's closed society, gaining accurate intel on the Red Army was all but impossible too regardless of when the invasion occured so such an inability could not logically deter the Germans if they intended to invade from day 1.

People with an elementary understanding of history simply compare Barbarossa to Napoleon. What they fail to realize is that the Germans were winning in Russia. The year 1941 on the Eastern Front produced a total of about 750,000 German casualties. The Soviet Union however, lost over 4 times as much. Examing the populations of each country gives us objective evidence that the Soviet Union could not sustain such casualties and would have eventually lost. The population of Germany was around 80 million while the Soviet Union was around 190,000,000 or a little less. Thus the Soviet Union had slightly over twice the population of Germany but was sustaining losses of over 4 to 1 making it mathematically impossible for Stalin to win on his own.

There is the general claim that the Russians were thrashed by the Germans but eventually recovered from the defeats and learned how to defeat the Germans. This is parochialism at its worse for it ignores the fact that the Germans learned from their mistakes as well. Hence the continued kill ratio favoring the Germans throughout the war.

So when someone mentions the harsh winter of 1941 in negative context to the Germans, they fail to realize that the Russians were suffering far far worse. The casualty ratio would continue to favor the Germans only perhaps with exception to Bagration in 1944. On a Grand Stretegic level the only reason the Russians won was because Germany had to divert resources to the West once the USA entered the conflict. Hence generally Barbarossa was logical and not a military blunder. Hitler may have not reached Moscow, but he didnt need to if he could bleed Stalin's armies to death.

6: HITLER SHOULD HAVE ATTACKED MOSCOW INSTEAD OF THE UKRAINE IN 1941

This is more "Hitler should have listened to his generals nonsense" Hitler's decision to reinforce Army Group South and attack the Ukraine before moving on Moscow was logical. During the summer of 1941, Army Group Center captured Smolensk but Army Group South had failed to conquer Kiev. This meant that if Hitler allowed the advance on Moscow , Army Group Center, whether successful or not, would have been exposed in an enormous, vulnerable salient directly in the center of the front and be exposed to attacks on its flank. In a way, Hitler in 1941 was like General Eisenhower in 1944 in that he wanted to attack on a broad front. So those who say Hitler was wrong for choosing to attack on a broad front in 1941 also have to admit that General Eisenhower was wrong to want to attack on a Broad front in Western Europe in 1944-45 which is an absurb notion given the failure of Market Garden.

Also Hitler was more correctly fixated on resources than capital cities like his unimaginative generals. People also ignore the huge German victory in the South at Kiev which yielded over 500,000 Russian casualties. When that victory is coupled with the loss of large economic areas of the Ukrainie and when considering the consequences of allowing Army Group Center to attack Moscow without flank support, the benefits of attacking South outweigh even the most favorable result of attacking Moscow in August 1941. Hence it is false to believe continuing the drive on Moscow in July/August 1941 would have produced better results.

7: STALINGRAD WAS A GREAT/DECISIVE SOVIET VICTORY

Parochial nonsense. The Russian lost just as much, if not more, troops than the Germans in that battle. It was not a great victory but a Pyrrhic victory overhyped by Soviet propoganda. The Germans still had the ability to fight and counter-attack as seen in the 3rd Battle of Kharkov and Kursk so Stalingrad was objectively NOT DECISIVE.

If someone is concerned with technicality, then yes the Russians won the Battle but in reality, on a Grand Strategic Level, both sides had enormous casualties so it was not a victory at all. The Soviet Union could not sustain such casualties if they continued.

Why people fixate on the Battle of Stalingrad and Hitler's refusal to allow a retreat is beyond me. Regardless if the 6th Army is surrounded , its still preventing the Russians from advancing further West and killing a ton of them when the Russians assault their position.

8: KURSK WAS A GREAT/DECISIVE SOVIET VICTORY

More parochial nonsense. The Russians lost more men and Tanks than the Germans. They once again only won on a technicality. No more than the British at the Battle of Breeds Hill , only on a much larger scale.


9: LEND LEASE SAVED THE SOVIET UNION

I wanted to address this one because it is partly true. I see it on this forum often and people have already displayed numbers and sources of equipment provided to the Soviet Union. However as I said this is only parly true. Lend Lease was essential to equiping the Red Army. I will not deny that. However it alone would not have been enough to save Stalin. In addition to Lend Lease, the millions of American troops fighting in Europe are also needed to save the Russians for they divert German manpower and material away from the Russian Front. So the truth is Lend Lease alone wasnt enough to keep the Russians in the war, Lend Lease combined with American military attacks were. Stalin could have attempted to fight the war with Lend Lease but without American military intervention ,it would not have been enough. Having all the equipment in the world does not matter if all the people who will have to use the equipment are dead.

10: THE INVASION OF NORMANDY OPENED UP THE SECOND FRONT IN EUROPE

No.I hear such foolishness often. Such an absurd notion is insulting to the Allied troops who fought in Italy, Sicily and North Africa and the airmen who fought in thr skies over Germany and Europe. The Second Front always existed since June 1941 and it had greater impact in 1942 once the United States was involved. The Germans gradually had to move more men and materal West to counter real or anticipated threats to German occupied Europe. Tunisa was just as costly to the Germans as Stalingrad and the Sicilian campaign forced the Germans to devote more divisions to occupy Italy. The bombing raids intensified in 1943 forcing the Luftwaffle to devote more fighters to aerial defense and remove them from the Eastern Front. The Second Front did not open on June 6th, 1944. I would argue that it was in late 1942 that the Second Front had noticable impact on weakening Germany's war effort with the Soviet Union.





There are a few other myths and mistakes that exists about world war two that I have not addressed. The belief that Japan could win after Pearl Harbor seems absurd given the industrial might of the United States, its much larger population, its technology and resolve. Other views I am simply not eductated on such as the German Economy but the view that Germany could have won if its economy put on a full time war effort has likely already been debunked on this forum before.

Dunkirk is another Battle I am not fully educated on to talk about. It seems to me though that the British and Allies escaped because of the British hasty willingness to run back to Britain rather than any folly on the Germans part. Sure a halt was ordered by Hitler/Rundstedt but wasn't it typical of German infantry to mop up encirclements and not Panzer divisions? The Halt was only 48 hours too and destroying the forces in the Dunkirk pocket would have no doubt been costly for Germany as well slowing down their conquest of France. So would it really matter in the grand scheme of things?

Nevertheless, overall when examing all powers, the grand strategic decisions are the most important. Every country made mistakes but the single big mistake that cost Germany the war was declaring war on the USA in Dec 1941.

[South]

Good morning Dark Age,

Welcome to the forum.

In chron order;

Re: "Germany was winning the war until late 1941";

Look at the US industrial mobilization. On 16 May 40, FDR appeared before Congress and - initially -asked for 50,000 military aircraft (repeat: 50, 000). After the 8 Oct 40 fall of France, Congress appropriated $17 billion for the military (repeat: $17,000,000,000).

Now glance at the May '39 "Rainbow Plans" if we may focus on strategy.

Plan 5: "...and also to provide ultimately for sending forces...to Europe".

The 5 Rainbow Plans were initiated in May 1939 (repeat: May 1939) and Generals and Admirals don't write stuff like above without the approval of the political establishment. Don't neglect to "address the principal reasons for success or failure".

Do you not think a de facto state of war was not in existence between the US and Germany in 1939?

I'd argue that Napoleon Bonaparte was both a great military tactician and a great strategist. Bonaparte got frostbite and frozen cognac in Russia but ""Napoleon" is an era of history. Look at the new European map after he went into retirement on an island.

Sometimes "stalemates" are victories. It depends. In 1940, the UK was not in a "hopeless situation". Note the 8 Sep 39 FDR proclamation of a "limited" national emergency. Review the above abbreviated quote from Rainbow Plan 5.

Avoid dealing in explicit facts. The 2 Sep 40 "Destroyer Deal" US-UK also allowed for the building of bases on British territory.

The Soviet's Red Army didn't learn how to defeat the Germans? "Scorched Earth" is a synonym for attrition warfare.

Re 7;

Don't determine victories by troop losses. Human life is cheap - and expendable. In the US this is not taught especially since Aristoteolian logic governs the education "system".

Stalin had no choice in re a US expeditionary force arriving on the European landmass.

Re 10;

Don't compare Normandy with North Africa and Sicily (Some will say Sicily is not in Italy but part of Africa). The economic wealth pre hostilities was next to the English Channel and the North Sea. Palmero and Siracusa just don't compare.

The single most important strategic rule that Germany did not understand was America's baseball rule: 3 strikes and you're out. The Atlantic Alliance wasn't going to lose its wealth over Versailles' war guilt clause, the new Russian Soviet government or transfers of wealth to Germany. After Franco-Prussian and The Great War, Part I, the third strike was to close down the Third Reich.

Warm regards,

Bob



......

To all celebrants:

Happy Independence Day for those who celebrate the holiday.

[LWD]

While many of your points have a fair amount of validity I take issue with

... COMMON WORLD WAR TWO VIEWPOINTS THAT ARE WRONG:
...
3: THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN WAS A BRITISH VICTORY

Nonsense. The term "Battle of Britain" was invented by Winston Churchill since he needed any victory he could get in July 1940. The Battle of Britain was simply an aerial battle were all that happened was the British defended their air space successfully. It was not a great British triumph but merely a triumph of survival. Overall, on the Strategic Level, the aerial battle was a stalemate. Although Germany could not win air supremacy over the British Isles, the Brtish were cornered and could not invade or gain aerial supremacy over German occupied Europe. Hence the Battle was not a British victory but a propoganda attempt to hide the fact that the British were in a hopeless situation.

....

A successful defense is a victory just as much as a successful offence is. Furthermore the British were in no more of a hopeless situation than the Germans were and it was the Germans who made the first serious mistake trying to change things.

[pugsville]

Hmm My take on Axis Mistakes. (no particular order)

1. Standardisation - I'm thinking mainly trucks. Too many different types of trucks, If they standardised on a few types and concentrated on their mass production they could have done better.

2. Working With Allies - Mainly Italy, the Italian submarines had limited impact surely a better working relationship joint command of a submarine force. But generally standardisation of equipment to better joint supplies lines and better (german designed) equipment for Italian forces.But generally a better working relationship and co-operation.

3. Less Racist Ideology - Better treatment of the conquered areas & prisoners, working with political groups, The Ukraine & Russia this could have been handled much better. Surely the Prisioners could have been used as manpower to feed themselves and rehabilitate conquered regions into better shape.

4. Not Declaring war on the US. (I think they would come in anyway and there support was pretty massive before the actual declaration, but actual US involvement would have been longer coming)

5. Better Appreciation of the problems in Russia - Logistics. Understanding that Russia was a tough nut, that the sheer space was a problem, (as well bad Intel) better gearing up, rolling stock, railway engineers, trucks.

6. Taking Moscow & Leningrad in the first attack on Russia. Too many objectives spread the Army to thin, Leningrad and Moscow were takable if there was more focus. Eastern Russia was less definable objectives (in terms there was always something further east) it was not going be over there by the first winter. Moscow & Leningrad could have been over and dealt with allowing better regrouping/consolidation for the push east in the second summer.

[Kingfish]

The Battle of Britain was simply an aerial battle were all that happened was the British defended their air space successfully.

If we are going to reduce one of the most decisive battles of WW2 down to such a ridiculously simplistic level then it shouldn't be a problem to take this same warped logic and apply it across the board:

Kursk was simply a big tank battle where all that happened was the Russians defended their territory successfully.
Midway was simply a carrier battle where all that happened was the US defended their Island outpost successfully.
D-day was simply an amphibious landing where all that happened was the Allies put troops ashore on the continent successfully.

[Graeme Sydney]

. Here I will address common views of WW2 that I view as mistakes.

COMMON WORLD WAR TWO VIEWPOINTS THAT ARE WRONG:


1: THE GERMANS LOST THE WAR IN 1939

Incorrect. Such statements are claims that the German defeat was inevitable. They fail to recognize that Germany was winning the war until late 1941. France was smashed, Britain was too weak to invade Europe on its own, and the Soviet Union was in the process of being bled to death. Germany lost the war on Dec 11, 1941 when Hitler declared war on the United States while his armies were engaged in Russia. That single act decided the war because it forced Germany to fight another opponent with awesome industrial capacity, western technology and which contained a population of around 140,000,000 and furthermore was safe from fighting a war on its own soil thus its production could not be molested. The huge population of the USA meant it could , in time, mobilize armies of many millions which would tip the balance in the allies favor.

Nothing like making a BIG statement when you join a forum hey!!! . Welcome to the forum .

I disagree with your statements but I won't argue them separately as I think they have a common flaw - you look at tactical situations and draw strategical conclusions - Germany won battles but didn't win the war.

And was never going to win the war. The early successes were delusional and misleading when judged against the geo-political outcomes Germany was fighting for.

The nearest we have of a statement of Germany's war aims would be Hitler's Mein Kamph. The two war aims I would deduce from Mein Kampf are restoration of the pre Versailles Treaty borders and the establishment of liberstrum in the east at the expense of the Slavic nations and peoples.

The restoration of the pre Versailles Treaty borders was a limited and probably achievable war aim. Indeed it is possible this war aim was achievable by diplomacy and threat of war, given time, patience and diplomatic skills.

Liberstrum, and all its attending justifications and ideologly of Master Race etc., was a total unachievable geo-political war aim which was going to be unacceptable, unmanageable and unachievable war aim and would be vigorously opposed by all other nations.

Basically Hitler and Germany 'took on' the world - meaning that they never had the resources to succeed.

The early success was because Germany 'stole the march' (i.e. prepared early and won the initial arms race and the assembly and training of her forces) and because Hitler as their commander strategically gambled.

The restoration of the pre Versailles Treaty borders was probably achievable by the military defeat of France and her Continental allies. The geo-political aim of establishing Liberstrum was never achievable without either the defeat or consent of the other great world powers - Britain, Russia and the USA. Germany may have been able to defeat Britain in isolation but Germany wasn't able to militarily able to defeat Russia and the USA, in isolation, and certainly not collectively.

If you accept the restoration of the pre Versailles Treaty borders and liberstrum as the two main war aims then you'll see that there was no effective Grand Plan, Germany just staggered from one surprising win to the next, giving the impression and delusion of winning but actually getting deeper and deeper in to trouble - more enemies with more resources and less allies with less and less resources.

This can clearly be seen when Germany arrives at Dunkirk; 'what do we do next?'. Germany had won a clear victory over France and was in a position to achieve it's first war aim, the restoration of the pre Versailles Treaty borders. But it had no plan and ad hoc and insufficient resources to defeat Britain or force her to accept the new fait accompli.

Germany lost this battle in about 1934-36 when she should have decided her strategy, to invade or to blockade. All her actions in preparing for war lost focus because of this. Germany planned and built a Blue Water fleet, but it ended up half arsed and an underachieving waste of resources. They planned a blockading sub fleet but built too few to be effective. They had limited resources and spent them unwisely. If they had concentrated on one or the other (but meaning the subs) they would have had a better chance. But this was typical of Hitler's leadership - he was a corporal well out of his depth and no intention of listening to any advice (and there was good advice to be had if he listened) - but it was okay because he could strut about and put on a good convincing show - delude himself and everyone else.

Even the land campaign suffered from their lack of strategic planning and focus. The Norway campaign was about securing long term access to Swedish iron ore (a long war) but primarily to give sub access to the Atlantic (i.e. to blockade). But the campaign ended up costing time and resources, especially naval and air resources, which were sadly missed come the BofB and Op Sea Lion, in fact doomed these ops to failure.

I could continue to develop this theme and argument but it would take a book's worth of writing for which I don't have the time or inclination - but you should get the gist.

[paspartoo]

Nice overview. For some reason WWII seems to be the most misrepresented conflict in human history. From the stupid Hitler that didn’t listen to his generals, the Luftwaffe that could have won the war if only it had built strategic bombers, going after Moscow instead for the Ukraine, Kursk costing the Germans 1,500 tanks etc etc. Tons and tons of shit. What’s strange is that even books published today still repeat these myths.

[ljadw]

You forget :it only was cold on the German side,never in Siberia,Stalin moving (on the advice of Sorge )fresh Siberian divisions (from Wladivostok to Moscow ),etc,etc
It is not strange that these myths are published still today :people like crap.

[paspartoo]

There should be a separate thread for all the misconceptions. It would be highly entertaining. Let me start: Hitler should have listened to his generals but all his generals were spies for British and Soviet intelligence that’s why he lost the war!

[Dark Age]

While many of your points have a fair amount of validity I take issue with

... COMMON WORLD WAR TWO VIEWPOINTS THAT ARE WRONG:
...
3: THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN WAS A BRITISH VICTORY

Nonsense. The term "Battle of Britain" was invented by Winston Churchill since he needed any victory he could get in July 1940. The Battle of Britain was simply an aerial battle were all that happened was the British defended their air space successfully. It was not a great British triumph but merely a triumph of survival. Overall, on the Strategic Level, the aerial battle was a stalemate. Although Germany could not win air supremacy over the British Isles, the Brtish were cornered and could not invade or gain aerial supremacy over German occupied Europe. Hence the Battle was not a British victory but a propoganda attempt to hide the fact that the British were in a hopeless situation.

....

A successful defense is a victory just as much as a successful offence is. Furthermore the British were in no more of a hopeless situation than the Germans were and it was the Germans who made the first serious mistake trying to change things.

I would have to disagree. Without help from the Soviet Union and the United States, Britain had no hope for victory. It lacked the stength to invade German occupied Europe even as German armies fought primarily in the East.

Germany on the other hand , while unable to invade England, would be victorious just maintaining a defensive strategy in the West after June 1940. Hitler did not even need to attempt to invade Britain and by attempting to do so he wasted resources ( mainly planes and airmen) that he could have used for Barbarossa.

It is objective fact that Britain was in a far less favorable situation then Germany, even after the aerial battle was over. It was a stalemate, that still left Britain in a desperate situation.

Furthermore as I explained, Barbarossa was not a military blunder but a logical necessity to turn Germany into a superpower so on a Grand Stretegic Scale the only mistake Germany made was declaring war on the USA.

[Dark Age]

The Battle of Britain was simply an aerial battle were all that happened was the British defended their air space successfully.

If we are going to reduce one of the most decisive battles of WW2 down to such a ridiculously simplistic level then it shouldn't be a problem to take this same warped logic and apply it across the board:

Kursk was simply a big tank battle where all that happened was the Russians defended their territory successfully.
Midway was simply a carrier battle where all that happened was the US defended their Island outpost successfully.
D-day was simply an amphibious landing where all that happened was the Allies put troops ashore on the continent successfully.

I do not mean to sound rude but spare us the parochial sentiment. It has no place in arguing numbers. I am by no means ignoring the heroic sacrifice of British servicemen or any country's service men in the war, but cold logic applies to strategy.

Battles no doubt are important but the strategic decisions that give birth to such battles are of the highest importance. For example, Japan's strategic decision to wage war on the USA was more important than any single Pacific theater battle or even numerous Pacific theater battles because that single decision will inevitably give birth to such battles.

Midway for example was an important event in the Pacific theater, however, even if the Japanese were successful in annihilating the last remaining American carriers during that battle, the Japanese still would have lost eventually. This is obvious when considering the resources , geography , technology and population of each country. In order to win the war the Japanese would have had to invade the West Coast and hold coastal territory from Seattle to San Diego, an impossible task for Japan to implement. Which is why Dec 7th , 1941 is the most important even of the Pacific Theater.

If you equate a victory to the Battle of Britain than you have low standards for victory. The British though successful in defending the British Isles from invasion lacked the strength to even force a favorable stalemate with Germany.

Eastern Front battles are only prominent parts in the bigger picture. The Soviet Union fought a defensive battle at Kursk and still lost twice as much as the Germans. Had Germany not been forced to transfer divsions West, the Soviet Union would have bled to death, especially considering its low standards for victory.

[Dark Age]

The Battle of Britain was simply an aerial battle were all that happened was the British defended their air space successfully.

If we are going to reduce one of the most decisive battles of WW2 down to such a ridiculously simplistic level then it shouldn't be a problem to take this same warped logic and apply it across the board:

Kursk was simply a big tank battle where all that happened was the Russians defended their territory successfully.
Midway was simply a carrier battle where all that happened was the US defended their Island outpost successfully.
D-day was simply an amphibious landing where all that happened was the Allies put troops ashore on the continent successfully.

I do not mean to sound rude but spare us the parochial sentiment. It has no place in arguing numbers. I am by no means ignoring the heroic sacrifice of British servicemen or any country's service men in the war, but cold logic applies to strategy.

Battles no doubt are important but the strategic decisions that give birth to such battles are of the highest importance. For example, Japan's strategic decision to wage war on the USA was more important than any single Pacific theater battle or even numerous Pacific theater battles because that single decision will inevitably give birth to such battles.

Midway for example was an important event in the Pacific theater, however, even if the Japanese were successful in annihilating the last remaining American carriers during that battle, the Japanese still would have lost eventually. This is obvious when considering the resources , geography , technology and population of each country. In order to win the war the Japanese would have had to invade the West Coast and hold coastal territory from Seattle to San Diego, an impossible task for Japan to implement. Which is why Dec 7th , 1941 is the most important even of the Pacific Theater.

If you equate a victory to the Battle of Britain than you have low standards for victory. The British though successful in defending the British Isles from invasion lacked the strength to even force a favorable stalemate with Germany.

Eastern Front battles are only prominent parts in the bigger picture. The Soviet Union fought a defensive battle at Kursk and still lost twice as much as the Germans. Had Germany not been forced to transfer divsions West, the Soviet Union would have bled to death, especially considering its low standards for victory.

[Dark Age]

. Here I will address common views of WW2 that I view as mistakes.

COMMON WORLD WAR TWO VIEWPOINTS THAT ARE WRONG:


1: THE GERMANS LOST THE WAR IN 1939

Incorrect. Such statements are claims that the German defeat was inevitable. They fail to recognize that Germany was winning the war until late 1941. France was smashed, Britain was too weak to invade Europe on its own, and the Soviet Union was in the process of being bled to death. Germany lost the war on Dec 11, 1941 when Hitler declared war on the United States while his armies were engaged in Russia. That single act decided the war because it forced Germany to fight another opponent with awesome industrial capacity, western technology and which contained a population of around 140,000,000 and furthermore was safe from fighting a war on its own soil thus its production could not be molested. The huge population of the USA meant it could , in time, mobilize armies of many millions which would tip the balance in the allies favor.

Nothing like making a BIG statement when you join a forum hey!!! . Welcome to the forum .

I disagree with your statements but I won't argue them separately as I think they have a common flaw - you look at tactical situations and draw strategical conclusions - Germany won battles but didn't win the war.

And was never going to win the war. The early successes were delusional and misleading when judged against the geo-political outcomes Germany was fighting for.

The nearest we have of a statement of Germany's war aims would be Hitler's Mein Kamph. The two war aims I would deduce from Mein Kampf are restoration of the pre Versailles Treaty borders and the establishment of liberstrum in the east at the expense of the Slavic nations and peoples.

The restoration of the pre Versailles Treaty borders was a limited and probably achievable war aim. Indeed it is possible this war aim was achievable by diplomacy and threat of war, given time, patience and diplomatic skills.

Liberstrum, and all its attending justifications and ideologly of Master Race etc., was a total unachievable geo-political war aim which was going to be unacceptable, unmanageable and unachievable war aim and would be vigorously opposed by all other nations.

Basically Hitler and Germany 'took on' the world - meaning that they never had the resources to succeed.

The early success was because Germany 'stole the march' (i.e. prepared early and won the initial arms race and the assembly and training of her forces) and because Hitler as their commander strategically gambled.

The restoration of the pre Versailles Treaty borders was probably achievable by the military defeat of France and her Continental allies. The geo-political aim of establishing Liberstrum was never achievable without either the defeat or consent of the other great world powers - Britain, Russia and the USA. Germany may have been able to defeat Britain in isolation but Germany wasn't able to militarily able to defeat Russia and the USA, in isolation, and certainly not collectively.

If you accept the restoration of the pre Versailles Treaty borders and liberstrum as the two main war aims then you'll see that there was no effective Grand Plan, Germany just staggered from one surprising win to the next, giving the impression and delusion of winning but actually getting deeper and deeper in to trouble - more enemies with more resources and less allies with less and less resources.

This can clearly be seen when Germany arrives at Dunkirk; 'what do we do next?'. Germany had won a clear victory over France and was in a position to achieve it's first war aim, the restoration of the pre Versailles Treaty borders. But it had no plan and ad hoc and insufficient resources to defeat Britain or force her to accept the new fait accompli.

Germany lost this battle in about 1934-36 when she should have decided her strategy, to invade or to blockade. All her actions in preparing for war lost focus because of this. Germany planned and built a Blue Water fleet, but it ended up half arsed and an underachieving waste of resources. They planned a blockading sub fleet but built too few to be effective. They had limited resources and spent them unwisely. If they had concentrated on one or the other (but meaning the subs) they would have had a better chance. But this was typical of Hitler's leadership - he was a corporal well out of his depth and no intention of listening to any advice (and there was good advice to be had if he listened) - but it was okay because he could strut about and put on a good convincing show - delude himself and everyone else.

Even the land campaign suffered from their lack of strategic planning and focus. The Norway campaign was about securing long term access to Swedish iron ore (a long war) but primarily to give sub access to the Atlantic (i.e. to blockade). But the campaign ended up costing time and resources, especially naval and air resources, which were sadly missed come the BofB and Op Sea Lion, in fact doomed these ops to failure.

I could continue to develop this theme and argument but it would take a book's worth of writing for which I don't have the time or inclination - but you should get the gist.

The German defeat was not inevitable and you are ignoring the fact that Germany was winning the war for the first two years.

Considering Hitler's war aims were to expand East to the Urals and turn Germany into a superpower, I would only have agreed with you that the German defeat was inevitable if the United States had a military alliance with the Soviet Union. In that case , Hitlers invasion of the Soviet Union would have been a great blunder. In that case Hitler would have no choice but to not wage war on Stalin or somehow , if the American-Soviet alliance was defensive only, attempt to provoke Stalin into attacking him

But since the USA did not have a military alliance with the Soviet Union in June 1941, Barbarossa was sensible.

[Graeme Sydney]

The German defeat was not inevitable and you are ignoring the fact that Germany was winning the war for the first two years.

We disagree. Indeed we are at polar opposites.

My point is that Germany was always going to lose a geo political war based on military actions alone. She simply didn't have the resources.

My point is that Germany wasn't winning the war in '41 - it was a delusion, The Victory Disease.

In '41 Germany had only conquered France and western Europe. Germany had not defeated or neutralized or come to terms with Britain, Russia or the USA. In fact had not taken even one step towards such an outcome. Indeed had done absolutely the opposite; alarmed, forewarned and given them time to prepare and muster their overwhelming resources.

In military terms the outcome was inevitable - another second place for Germany - 'nice try' but 'close but no cigar'.

Considering Hitler's war aims were to expand East to the Urals and turn Germany into a superpower, I would only have agreed with you that the German defeat was inevitable if the United States had a military alliance with the Soviet Union. In that case , Hitlers invasion of the Soviet Union would have been a great blunder. In that case Hitler would have no choice but to not wage war on Stalin or somehow , if the American-Soviet alliance was defenseive only, attempt to provoke Stalin into attacking him

But since the USA did not have a military alliance with the Soviet Union in June 1941, Barbarossa was sensible.

And that's the whole point. Hitler/Germany never did anything to isolate Russia diplomatically or militarily. Indeed he did absolutely the opposite - Hitler went to war with Russia with unfinished business behind him and declared war on the USA.

Not that the declaration of War meant much - Hitler just played into FDR's hand and made it politically easy for him at home in the USA. (I can only imagine FDR wobbling around on his braced legs in the White House punching the air saying 'yo beauty, thank you God'.

If you read South's post above you'll see that America was already ranged against Germany and had identified her as a threat to her national interests in 1939.

And America had already signaled and acted that she was opposed to Germany's intentions of dominating Europe (even when the horrors of the Holocaust and the human ramification of the Liberstrum policy wasn't yet fully obvious). Germany knew it, Hitler knew it. He was just completely dismissive of America's military strength and ability, and political will.

America may not have been a natural ally of Soviet Russia and most certainly had no formal agreement between them but their national interests to confine Germany were mutual. The stupidity of Hitler was that he had an obvious opportunity to exploit the differences between Soviet Russia and Capitalist America but did absolutely nothing to exploit the advantage. Hitler didn't even think at this level, let alone act effectively.

But even with Britain and the USA neutralized by one means or the other the attack on Russia was an enormous gamble based on faulty intelligence and understanding. It belongs in the What If section but, even if Germany had come to terms with Britain and or USA in '41 and attacked with the additional troops and resources of the Med being available to her, the outcome would have been pretty much the same. (Now in reply do not assume the early success of Barbarossa is repeated. Given even a weeks warning the disposition of Soviet forces and the early performance based on alertness can be assumed to be far better than the historical facts.)

[Dark Age]

Hmm My take on Axis Mistakes. (no particular order)

1. Standardisation - I'm thinking mainly trucks. Too many different types of trucks, If they standardised on a few types and concentrated on their mass production they could have done better.

2. Working With Allies - Mainly Italy, the Italian submarines had limited impact surely a better working relationship joint command of a submarine force. But generally standardisation of equipment to better joint supplies lines and better (german designed) equipment for Italian forces.But generally a better working relationship and co-operation.

3. Less Racist Ideology - Better treatment of the conquered areas & prisoners, working with political groups, The Ukraine & Russia this could have been handled much better. Surely the Prisioners could have been used as manpower to feed themselves and rehabilitate conquered regions into better shape.

4. Not Declaring war on the US. (I think they would come in anyway and there support was pretty massive before the actual declaration, but actual US involvement would have been longer coming)

5. Better Appreciation of the problems in Russia - Logistics. Understanding that Russia was a tough nut, that the sheer space was a problem, (as well bad Intel) better gearing up, rolling stock, railway engineers, trucks.

6. Taking Moscow & Leningrad in the first attack on Russia. Too many objectives spread the Army to thin, Leningrad and Moscow were takable if there was more focus. Eastern Russia was less definable objectives (in terms there was always something further east) it was not going be over there by the first winter. Moscow & Leningrad could have been over and dealt with allowing better regrouping/consolidation for the push east in the second summer.

1: STANDARDISATION

I have yet too hear a convincing argument that Germany's truck production cost them the war or any argument at all . I do not access to numbers but how could such a parochial issue be so monumental. Did somehow all the other allied countries make significantly less mistakes in their Truck production than Germany? I would assume every country made production mistakes so this seems like a non-issue.

2: WORKING WITH ALLIES

This has some merit. But even if Mussolini did not invade Greece, Barbarossa could not be launched on its original start date of May 15th , 1941 because of the Spring rains in Russia. I have heard the earliest possible start date for Barbarossa may have been June 7th or 8th, 1941. Regardless it is unlikely that the Germans could conquer Russia in a single campaign season, even if their vehicles were not as worn down from the Balkan Campaign.

Japan should have attacked Stalin in Manchuria but with Japan's oil reserves running low from the Embargo this option was unlikely for them to take since it does not solve the Oil issue.

3: Less Racist Ideology

This one is a difficult one to tackle but Nazi racism , by 1941, was reinforced by years of indoctrination on Germany's population. One cannot simply turn it off like a switch before Barbarossa. When examing social trends, such racism was prevalent in Germany at the time, at least enough to allow the Nazis to attain power, and , anti-Semitism aside, a certain measure of racism is required to wage a such a war of conquest.

So saying Germany should have been less racist in its attempt of conquest of the East is like asking water not to be wet. Without that racial element, war probably would not have occured at all.

Furthermore, to my knowledge the Soviet Union was not a signed member of the Geneva Convention which means they had no right to claim to be treated fairly by decree of international law. Stating otherwise is hypocrisy since they themselves are not bound by international law.

4: NOT DECLARING WAR ON THE USA

Agreed. The USA is a Western Nation of hugh industrial capacity and has a population of 140,000,000

5: BETTER LOGISTICS

The Germans did their best. As did all nations in the war. They cannot magically create another 500,000 trucks with personal to drive them out of thin air.

Other countries made logistical mistakes as well so claiming Germany should have had better logistics but not the Allied nations is absurb


6: TAKING MOSCOW AND LENINGRAD DURING FIRST ATTACK

As I already explained , Moscow was attacked, in September 1941. Attacking it before Army Group South caught up with the front would have been risky since it would have left Army Group Center in a huge salient directly in the center of the front. The diversion South to take Kiev furthermore yielded millions of Russian casualties and captured much of the economical territory in the Ukraine.

Leningrad was attacked. It was surrounded and cut off and with the German occupation of the Baltic States, Leningrad's role as a naval port was worthless. Assaulting the city directly would have wasted resources Germany needed for other areas of the front and would have cost too many casualties for little gain.



Of all your reasons, 2 and 4 seem to be the only relevant ones that caused Germany to lose the war.