Reasons germany lost the war

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Post Reply
Niklas68
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 14 Mar 2015, 12:48
Location: Germany

Re: Naval Affairs

#271

Post by Niklas68 » 21 May 2015, 10:38

ChrisDR68 wrote: Bottom line to this discussion on Germany's naval blockade (or attempted naval blockade) misses the point for me. To to be sure of knocking Britain out of the war Germany needed to physically invade and conquer the country.

Bingo and my thoughts exactly.

On a somewhat related note - the same holds IMO true for the battle of britain or the attempt to gain air superiority over southern England. At times the LW indeed managed to hold the RAF down but it never availed to anything in the end, Germany simply had no proper invasion fleet ready to launch, thus the Battle of Britian was merely a gesture of menace, a bluff, but it had no substance behind it, it was an empty token. Even if germany had secured air superiority over a longer period of time it still couldnt have launched the invasion at that stage. And because of that the whole battle of britian was costly and useless. Both of these aspects of the early war (battle of atlantic and battle of britain) from the german viewpoint had little to no prospect of success in the long run with no invasion fleet at hand, both failures can be derived to the same old general miscalculation on germanys part: There was no proper strategy to fight England, there were no plans what would happen if a war with britain broke out. Hitler imo never intended to fight england and was caught on the completey wrong foot when it came to having to fight them.

I do not think a large navy would have been needed for the invasion, btw, I mean as in building a large number of big surface units as a precondition for it.

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Naval Affairs

#272

Post by BDV » 21 May 2015, 15:35

Niklas68 wrote:And because of that the whole battle of britian was costly and useless. Both of these aspects of the early war (battle of atlantic and battle of britain) from the german viewpoint had little to no prospect of success in the long run with no invasion fleet at hand, both failures can be derived to the same old general miscalculation on germanys part: There was no proper strategy to fight England, there were no plans what would happen if a war with britain broke out. Hitler imo never intended to fight england and was caught on the completey wrong foot when it came to having to fight them.
No, it's England imposing an unfavourable tempo on Germany, and Adolf running out of the reasoned expansion plans that had been prepared by the slightly more competent men who preceded the cruel joke that was the Nazi leadership of Germany.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion


Konig_pilsner
Member
Posts: 321
Joined: 19 Dec 2003, 08:34
Location: Hamilton, Canada

Re: Reasons germany lost the war

#273

Post by Konig_pilsner » 23 May 2015, 09:36

England wasn't imposing anything in the late summer of 1940.

Your comments are without reason or thought, and again are just attempts to further discredit a regime that has already been completely discredited in the proper way. You have been here long enough and should know better.

Germany knowing they would lose the BoB is ridiculous.
France producing arms for German allies is ridiculous.
German using French arms is ridiculous.
Barbarossa being poorly planned is ridiculous.
German occupation policies in the east causing problems is ridiculous.
Manstein, Von Leeb failing to take Leningrad is ridiculous.

Some newer members may fall for this crap. Being politically correct or hating Nazi's might be the right thing to do, but it doesn't add value to a history forum. Here we should only be concerned with truth.
KP

Niklas68
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 14 Mar 2015, 12:48
Location: Germany

Re: Reasons germany lost the war

#274

Post by Niklas68 » 23 May 2015, 10:05

Konig_pilsner wrote:
Some newer members may fall for this crap. Being politically correct or hating Nazi's might be the right thing to do, but it doesn't add value to a history forum. Here we should only be concerned with truth.
KP

Dunno if this last bit of your post was referring to me but if so I don't fall for anything, i had this type of poster figured out after the first post i read and since spare myself the time responding as its a waste of time. As you said its adding nothing history wise, its a mixture of emotions and low class hyper politically correct spewing, I have better things to do than debate with such people.

ChrisDR68
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: 13 Oct 2013, 12:16

Re: Reasons germany lost the war

#275

Post by ChrisDR68 » 23 May 2015, 17:02

Konig_pilsner wrote:England wasn't imposing anything in the late summer of 1940.
That's true but Britain staying in the war as a belligerent against Germany weakened her overall strategic position enormously. Hitler needed to secure his western flank completely so he could devote virtually the whole of the German armed forces against the Soviet Union.

With a western (and southern) flank still to contend with that weakened the forces he could range against the Soviets. The bombing campaign against Germany also used resources and manpower desperately needed elsewhere. Barborossa was such a gigantic undertaking that Germany couldn't afford any weakening of her army and airforce at all in this theatre.

Hitler gambled all on a quick defeat of the USSR and when that failed the Germans were cooked because their forces were spread too thinly everywhere.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Reasons germany lost the war

#276

Post by ljadw » 23 May 2015, 19:38

ChrisDR68 wrote: Hitler needed to secure his western flank completely so he could devote virtually the whole of the German armed forces against the Soviet Union.

Is it not : Hitler needed to secire his eastern flank completely so he could devote virtually the whole of the German armed forces against the UK/US ?

ChrisDR68
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: 13 Oct 2013, 12:16

Re: Reasons germany lost the war

#277

Post by ChrisDR68 » 25 May 2015, 16:01

ljadw wrote:
ChrisDR68 wrote: Hitler needed to secure his western flank completely so he could devote virtually the whole of the German armed forces against the Soviet Union.

Is it not : Hitler needed to secire his eastern flank completely so he could devote virtually the whole of the German armed forces against the UK/US ?
Most of what I've read about Hitler's strategic thinking would indicate that he didn't want a war in the west at all and was shocked when Britain and France declared war when Germany invaded Poland.

He wanted an east European land empire (particularly the Soviet Union west of the Ural mountains) and thought the two big western powers in Europe would decline to intervene in those ambitions.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Reasons germany lost the war

#278

Post by ljadw » 25 May 2015, 17:50

Yes ,but ,in the autumn of 1940,the situation was different : he was saddled up with a war against Britain,which he could not win,and would lose when the US would intervene ,especially when he would be faced in the east by a neutral SU,neutral meaning that within 24 hours the SU could declare war on Germany or made unacceptible demands .

To prevent this,he saw no other possibility than to eliminate the SU,hoping that this would force Britain to give up and prevent an intervention of the US,or at least,that,if the war with Britain continued and the US intervened ,the conquest of European Russia would make him invincible .

Hitler's prewar talking about an attack of the SU (lebensraum),talking,because there were no plans,was founded on the assumption that Britain and France would not oppose an attack against the SU .

In august 1914,the Germans were going west,because their conclusion was that a quick victory in the east was impossible .

In june 1941,they went east,because the conclusion was that a quick victory in the west was impossible .

ML59
Member
Posts: 414
Joined: 26 Dec 2007, 12:09
Location: GENOVA

Re: Reasons germany lost the war

#279

Post by ML59 » 25 May 2015, 19:27

I basically agree with ljadw, for this reason I wrote that Germany made the wrong war against the wrong enemies. Anyway, the drive toward east was not the brainchild of Hitler but was a geopolitical/cultural trend already well present in the Germany society since late XIX century (same for anti-semitism) that was greatly emphasized after the end of WW1. By the beginning of the '20s there were in Germany several "think-tanks" embedded in prestigious universities and government sponsored institutions that studied (and, in some way, proposed) a possible expansion of the German culture, society and economic area of influence to the East. Nazis just jumped in the concept with both feet, being only too eager to advocate a kind of new geopolitical order allowing Germany to play a major role in defeating bolshevik-communism (and judaism, in their eyes being two face of the same coin) in exchange of a recognition of a status-quo in the West, with only minor adjustment aimed to rectify some (not all!) the wrong-doings of Versailles.

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
Location: Australia

Re: Reasons germany lost the war

#280

Post by Graeme Sydney » 27 May 2015, 13:12

ljadw wrote:
In august 1914,the Germans were going west,because their conclusion was that a quick victory in the east was impossible .

In june 1941,they went east,because the conclusion was that a quick victory in the west was impossible .
And they got it wrong both times!!! Capabilities and ambitions getting severely confused. :roll:

They had the military science to work it out but both times Germany was lead by self-consumed autocrats. The military science equation dictated both times it would be a 'close race' and both times they 'placed it all on red' - assume that they could force a quick result before their enemies could bring all they resources to the battle. Wrong both times. This was gambling not military science.

Military science dictated both times not to rely entirely on the military, both times they needed a greater and complementary diplomatic and political effort - but self-consumed autocrats with a fawning self-serving military and bureaucracy being what they are.........

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Reasons germany lost the war

#281

Post by Sid Guttridge » 27 May 2015, 13:59

Hi ljadw,

Any discussion of war with the USSR before the actual outbreak of war in 1939 could never be much more than talk, because Germany (even isolated East Prussia) had no common border with the USSR. Actual planning was therefore superfluous at that stage.

Cheers,

Sid.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Reasons germany lost the war

#282

Post by ljadw » 27 May 2015, 14:29

I know : the only possibility for Stalin to help Poland wasthat Poland would open her border for the Soviet Army,but,to use an euphemism:this was unlikely : if he was invited somewhere,Stalin had the custom to remain and to consider the place as his own .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Reasons germany lost the war

#283

Post by ljadw » 27 May 2015, 14:39

Graeme Sydney wrote:
ljadw wrote:
In august 1914,the Germans were going west,because their conclusion was that a quick victory in the east was impossible .

In june 1941,they went east,because the conclusion was that a quick victory in the west was impossible .
And they got it wrong both times!!! Capabilities and ambitions getting severely confused. :roll:

They had the military science to work it out but both times Germany was lead by self-consumed autocrats. The military science equation dictated both times it would be a 'close race' and both times they 'placed it all on red' - assume that they could force a quick result before their enemies could bring all they resources to the battle. Wrong both times. This was gambling not military science.

Military science dictated both times not to rely entirely on the military, both times they needed a greater and complementary diplomatic and political effort - but self-consumed autocrats with a fawning self-serving military and bureaucracy being what they are.........
They were right in 1914 : a quick victory in the east was impossible ,of course for a quick victory in the west it was the same .But one can not expect from people who were convinced that they had a mission : to succeed where Bonaparte had failed,to put away their ambitions .

"People " was not limited to those living in Potsdam and the Bendlerstrasse :a big part of the German population was fostering these illusions .

For 1941,it was the same and it was different:a quick victory in the west was impossible,thus Barbarossa was ineluctable ,otherwise Harris and Spaatz would come to destroy the German cities .

There were also other benefits for Barbarossa :the final settlement with the Jews and the final realization of the old dream of a germanized east : the German Kultur would dominate from Köningsbergen to the Urals .

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 657
Joined: 06 Aug 2007, 12:37
Location: scotland

Re: Reasons germany lost the war

#284

Post by doogal » 28 May 2015, 18:47

ljadw wrote: They were right in 1914 : a quick victory in the east was impossible ,of course for a quick victory in the west it was the same .But one can not expect from people who were convinced that they had a mission : to succeed where Bonaparte had failed,to put away their ambitions .
considering the eastern front was the only real success during WW1 I wonder how true the phrase " a quick victory in the east was impossible" really is....
it should maybe be looked at again.... considering that the stress that was evident in Tsarist Russia would have been created far sooner if an eastern strategy had been put into place..(I am not suggesting that Russia could have been knocked out of the war with one blow.. but a defensive/offensive strategy used in 1914 may have brought Russia to the negotiation table)
ljadw wrote: For 1941,it was the same and it was different:a quick victory in the west was impossible
Leaving the British mainland alone may have been more of a suitable option... While attacking Britain in an indirect way may have paid more dividends....

In both cases though I agree that the same rational was in play... Achieve a quick victory ... then turn east or west...
Graham Sydney wrote: Military science dictated both times not to rely entirely on the military, both times they needed a greater and complementary diplomatic and political effort - but self-consumed autocrats with a fawning self-serving military and bureaucracy being what they are.........
completely agree that there needed to be some sort of complimentary political strategy following military victory, but this just never existed. Plus it would have meant Hitler not attacking, and as we know using force was the cornerstone of his whole political economic military view....Even the political deals that he made were only pre-ambles to his wider vision of a German dominated continent.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Reasons germany lost the war

#285

Post by ljadw » 29 May 2015, 08:37

No : A Schwerpunkt east in 1914 would result in a long war, something Germany could not afford ,not politically,economically, not militarily . Besides: the collaps of Russia would not benefit Germany :

if Russia was out,France still would be there,but if France was out, Rusia wold becoma a German satellite and it would give Germany the supremacy in Europe .

if the regime of the czar collapsed and be replaced by a democratic regime,this would be very dangerous for Germany and AH : it would accelerate the process of democratisation in Germany .In 1917,the Czar was out, a year later it was the turn of the Kaiser .

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”