Reasons germany lost the war

[Alixanther]

Hm : Hitler "supported" China,while the US "supported" Japan .

Hm : ALREADY before PH (and the German DOW on the US ) the US supported the USSR against Germany .

THAT is the exact reason of German declaration of war. Otherwise Hitler would have never declared war against a sister racist nation, whom he held in respect. Heck, he tried to mould Germany after US soo many times over...
However, US supported the USSR long before 1939 ... was that a sign they could support USSR against Britain, too?

[dshaday]

Hi Sid

Certainly the UK and France were allied. But they didn't have to be. They were separate states.

The fact remains that France and the UK chose to be allied before the war with Germany. They worked in step with each other.

Nor, even with a combined metropolitan population of 85 million were they significantly larger than Germany with 80 million (if one discounts its Slavic minorities).

Again, you conveniently ignore the French/British colonies (adding "metropolitan population" after my initial comment). With the colonies Germany is now significantly outnumbered. Add the British dominions and the balance is far worse for Germany. In Australia for example, there was absolutely no doubt that a war between Britain and Germany automatically meant Australia was going to war with Germany.

It should also be borne in mind that Germany was allied to Italy, yet Rome did not enter the war for nearly a year. Alliances tend not to be as reliable or deployable as unitary states.

It all depends on what the prior arrangements were. Britain and France for example declared war on Germany on the same day. Both countries obviously worked in co-operation. This alliance was quite robust. Hitler would have been a fool to assume France and Britain would not work in unison and behave like Italy (especially after the British treaty with Poland).

Certainly, in isolation, my point about Germany's size is simplistic. Any point in isolation will tend to be so. As I wrote earlier, "Of course there is much more to it than that, but size was a significant factor both in Nazi Germany's military rise and its decline."

Then why make such a simplistic statement (on its own) in the first place? Especially as it has little value.

In 1940 Germany's population was outnumbered by it's enemies in the British-French alliance.
Being the "single biggest combatant" label (based on population) can be argued of Germany prior to war with the USSR, but it is misleading and of little value. If you just look at Britain plus its empire (which acted in unison during the war) as an integrated bloc then that label for Germany will fail.

Regards

Dennis

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Dennis,

Certainly, "The fact remains that France and the UK chose to be allied before the war with Germany." However, how far "They worked in step with each other" compared with a unitary state like Germany is another matter. The fact remains that they were separate states. Indeed, Churchill's attempt to unify the two states in order to keep France in the war was rejected. Germany had no such problems with, for example, Austria.

You write, "It all depends on what the prior arrangements were." Well, no, not entirely. It all depends on how any prior arrangements are acted upon. Italy, for example, should, according to prior arrangements, have been a Central Power in WWI. France, had it honoured its obligations, might have backed Czechoslovakia at Munich, and so on. Hitler delayed the attack on Poland from 25 August 1939 because he learnt at the last minute that Italy would not come in with him. Unitary states to do not have these uncertainties. When Germany went to war, so did its Austrian acquisition.

Simplistic statements are not untrue. Indeed, you have not disputed its accuracy at all. Germany was a very big country in continental European terms. Are you suggesting that the fact that Germany had almost twice the population of its next largest neighbour was not a major factor in its successes up to 1941?

Britain was not a continental European power and neighbour of Germany.

Nor was Britain's empire a unitary state. All the Dominions, except Newfoundland (pop.±300,000) had to make their own declarations of war and possessed powers of dissension thereafter. Australia largely went its own way from 1942. South African troops could not be compelled to serve outside Africa. Newfoundland had no conscription. Rhodesians could not be deployed in large consolidated units for fear of losing almost the entire white male population of the colony in one action. Britain withdrew quickly from Greece because mostly Dominion forces were at risk there. None of this applied, for example, to Germany's Austrians.

In haste, Sid.

[dshaday]

Hi Sid

Certainly, "The fact remains that France and the UK chose to be allied before the war with Germany." However, how far "They worked in step with each other" compared with a unitary state like Germany is another matter. The fact remains that they were separate states. Indeed, Churchill's attempt to unify the two states in order to keep France in the war was rejected. Germany had no such problems with, for example, Austria.

Which has little/nothing to do with my comments regarding your simplistic statements.

You write, "It all depends on what the prior arrangements were." Well, no, not entirely. It all depends on how any prior arrangements are acted upon. Italy, for example, should, according to prior arrangements, have been a Central Power in WWI. France, had it honoured its obligations, might have backed Czechoslovakia at Munich, and so on. Hitler delayed the attack on Poland from 25 August 1939 because he learnt at the last minute that Italy would not come in with him. Unitary states to do not have these uncertainties. When Germany went to war, so did its Austrian acquisition.

As history shows for 1940, they acted in unison. The declarations of war saw to that, and showed their commitment.

Simplistic statements are not untrue. Indeed, you have not disputed its accuracy at all.

You will need to re-read my posts regarding their accuracy/value.
Also, you yourself have admitted that it is not accurate on its own (hint, check what the dictionary defines accuracy to be).

Nor was Britain's empire a unitary state. All the Dominions, except Newfoundland (pop.±300,000) had to make their own declarations of war and possessed powers of dissension thereafter. Australia largely went its own way from 1942. South African troops could not be compelled to serve outside Africa. Newfoundland had no conscription. Rhodesians could not be deployed in large consolidated units for fear of losing almost the entire white male population of the colony in one action. Britain withdrew quickly from Greece because mostly Dominion forces were at risk there. None of this applied, for example, to Germany's Austrians.

This does not affect the points I have made.

Regards

Dennis

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Dennis,

And after all that you failed to address my one question:

Are you suggesting that the fact that Germany had almost twice the population of its next largest neighbour was not a major factor in its successes up to 1941?

Cheers,

Sid.

[Michael Kenny]

Hi Dennis,

And after all that you failed to address my one question:

Are you suggesting that the fact that Germany had almost twice the population of its next largest neighbour was not a major factor in its successes up to 1941?

The claim numbers are a significant factor is a 'get out of jail card' that only the Germans are allowed to play.

[stg 44]

Hi Dennis,

And after all that you failed to address my one question:

Are you suggesting that the fact that Germany had almost twice the population of its next largest neighbour was not a major factor in its successes up to 1941?

Cheers,

Sid.

Depends on the situation, in Poland that was totally part of what happened, but in France the coalition was opposite them was larger and better equipped than the German military in 1940. From 1940 on the Germans were outnumbered yet they still won, proving that there was a lot more going on in Poland than just numbers.

[Michael Kenny]

From 1940 on the Germans were outnumbered yet they still one, proving that there was a lot more going on in Poland than just numbers.

It all depends on how you define 'won'. Narrow thinkers could be fooled into believng the advances in 1941-42 were stunning achievements only by ignoring the consequences of this overstreatch. Having eyes too big for your belly might be a better description of a Military that failed to follow the most basic principles of war.
Hindsight tells us the Germans had a very narrow window to end WW2 on their terms in the summer of 1940. Because their Air Force and Navy could not overcome the enemy then they were doomed to eventual defeat. A superior Military saw off the challenge and brought the whole rotten system crashing down around Hitlers head 1943-1945.
The German Army in the 20th century suffered 2 catastrophic and total defeats. Track record is a better indication of ability than 'what ifs'.

[stg 44]

From 1940 on the Germans were outnumbered yet they still one, proving that there was a lot more going on in Poland than just numbers.

It all depends on how you define 'won'. Narrow thinkers could be fooled into believng the advances in 1941-42 were stunning achievements only by ignoring the consequences of this overstreatch. Having eyes too big for your belly might be a better description of a Military that failed to follow the most basic principles of war.
Hindsight tells us the Germans had a very narrow window to end WW2 on their terms in the summer of 1940. Because their Air Force and Navy could not overcome the enemy then they were doomed to eventual defeat. A superior Military saw off the challenge and brought the whole rotten system crashing down around Hitlers head 1943-1945.
The German Army in the 20th century suffered 2 catastrophic and total defeats. Track record is a better indication of ability than 'what ifs'.

Now you're moving the goal post; originally you asked why the 'Germany outnumbered its neighbors' line didn't hold water and I answered that. They defeated the French, Belgians, Norwegian, Dutch, and Poles in quick succession in 1939-40 effectively forcing them from the war other than governments in exile. Eventually the Free French formed and there were some combatants for the others, but effectively they were defeated. Britain too was forced from the continent and defeated, but remained in the war to return later. Ultimately Germany lost to a coalition of superior numbers and economies based around US production, intent on stopping the rise of rival economies that might match or exceed her. In terms of effectiveness German numbers were helpful early on, but not why they won; however it ultimately was why they lost. Arguably had their political leadership not blown chances to get the British out of the war (Dunkirk) and then declared war on more and more powers it could have defeated Britain and then turned on the USSR without the US being politically able to intervene, defeating the USSR in detail over the period of a few years. Then Soviet numbers wouldn't have meant much without the British blockade, US LL/strategic bombing, and Wallied extra fronts bleeding Germany off the Eastern Front.

[ljadw]

All this is not correct :
Germany had lost in june 1940 all chances to win the war and everything that happens later was only accelerating the German collaps .

Other wrong points :

Dunkirk : this was only a detail in the history of WWII:Germany never could capture the British forces at Dunkirk,and if it did,Britain still would continue the war and Germany still would lose

Germany never could defeat the SU in a few years,only in a few weeks and if it did,this would only accelerate the German collaps .

LL:it never had the mythical importance some people are giving it :the SU still would win without LL,without strategic bombing .

BTW : strategic bombing was till 1944 essentially the business of Britain,not of the US .

[Michael Kenny]

. Britain too was forced from the continent and defeated, but remained in the war to return later

Yes 'defeated'. So defeated she kept on fighing and the RAF routed the Luftwaffe. The RN was so 'defeated' that the Army did not dare enter the Channel because the KM dared not take on the RN.

That is some 'defeat' (Some chicken! Some neck!" )

.

Ultimately Germany lost to a coalition of superior numbers and economies based around US production, intent on stopping the rise of rival economies that might match or exceed her.

That is it. Envious neighbours tricked poor old Adolf into invading Czechoslovaka, Poland, Norway, Belgium, Holland, France, Greeces et al. Germany was the victim in WW2!

Arguably had their political leadership not blown chances to get the British out of the war (Dunkirk)

Germany did try and elimnate the Dunkirk pocket. However their army was just not capable of beating and capturing the BEF. the RN & RAF were all part of the British Army and they were too powerful for the Germans. Blaming Hitler when it all goes wrong will not work here. The German Army failed at Dunkirk.

it could have defeated Britain and then turned on the USSR without the US being politically able to intervene, defeating the USSR in detail over the period of a few years. Then Soviet numbers wouldn't have meant much without the British blockade, US LL/strategic bombing, and Wallied extra fronts bleeding Germany off the Eastern Front.

The Germans were toe to toe with the British in 1940. That is when they were at their most powerful and the UK at its weakest. The Germans turned east not because they felt sorry for the UK but because they were completely unable to overcome the RAF and knew they could not win a battle with the RN.. The Germans were thwaerted in 1940 because the other 2 legs of the British Army were more powerful than their German counterparts. Germany was not as powerul as Hitler thought it was. It was outfought.

[BDV]

Arguably had their political leadership not blown chances to get the British out of the war (Dunkirk)

1. There was no such chance, no matter how many Munchausen-style tales Hitler's murderous underlings tell.

2. The historical Dunkirk developments were as close to perfect for Nazi Germany as conceptually possible.

[stg 44]

Arguably had their political leadership not blown chances to get the British out of the war (Dunkirk)

1. There was no such chance, no matter how many Munchausen-style tales Hitler's murderous underlings tell.

2. The historical Dunkirk developments were as close to perfect for Nazi Germany as conceptually possible.

Other than the halt order preventing the Germans from going after Dunkirk 15km away for 2 days until after the British set up defenses and were able to resist and evacuate 300k men off the beaches; it was pretty disastrous and unnecessary for the Germans who could have occupied it when it was undefended and pocketed the entire BEF.

[dshaday]

H Sid

And after all that you failed to address my one question:

Are you suggesting that the fact that Germany had almost twice the population of its next largest neighbour was not a major factor in its successes up to 1941?

Your initial comment was actually: "Finally, I would go back to my earlier point - a major reason why Germany initially did well was that it was far bigger than any of its neighbours and things only began to go seriously wrong when it ran into an even larger power - the USSR."

I have already adequately addressed, in detail over several posts, why this statement is simplistic in concept and hence inaccurate in explaining Germany's early victories. Germany's relative population size to each of its neighbours does not adequately account for all of it's victories prior to Barbarossa -it is not that important. Again, you need to properly read my earlier posts.

Also, you have yourself said "Certainly, in isolation, my point about Germany's size is simplistic."

So let's not waste any more time.

Regards

Dennis

[ljadw]

Other than the halt order preventing the Germans from going after Dunkirk 15km away for 2 days until after the British set up defenses and were able to resist and evacuate 300k men off the beaches; it was pretty disastrous and unnecessary for the Germans who could have occupied it when it was undefended .

This is an unproved statement.