Reasons germany lost the war

[BDV]

With regards to the french and the peace terms of 1940, again hitler was showing he lacked the global perspective, he shouldn't have left them in possession of the north african coast.

Hitler was not in position to allow the French not to do that. In 1940 Germany was extremely lucky that French lost their nerve. Fighting from the colonies is fully feasible, and it would mean immediate loss of North Africa for Italy, which does not have the Navy to defeat the joint strength of British Med Fleet and the entirety of the French Fleet.

[Niklas68]

Fighting from the colonies while their whole motherland (including the vichy part in this scenraio) is occupied? Supply should be a major problem then imo, and fear of retribution for their home nation. That's probably an interesting "what if" question.

[Paul_G_Baker]

1) Failure to ensure the bulk of the BEF was 'put into the bag' at Dunkirk, and

2) Failure to invade and subjugate the UK - probably Summer 1941.

[BDV]

It is exactly what Britain was prepared to do in the aftermath of Fall of France.

[Graeme Sydney]

Seeing that Germany, in dire need of surface raiders, manned freighters and used them as commerce raiders such as Penguin and Komet, I tend to think germany could have made use of these ships, under the condition they were still based in the eastern Med, not in the North Sea. And if not maybe hand them over to italy, italy actually had quite a decent mediterranean fleet to boost themselves. Im not sure they had the manpower to man any additional large units but are inclined to believe they might have had. But it would have been difficult to get the french to hand them over to italy, musssolini did nothing to defeat france to earn any sort of thing like it, but regardless, it would ve aided the axis case, imo

With regards to the french and the peace terms of 1940, again hitler was showing he lacked the global perspective, he shouldn't have left them in possession of the north african coast. A different topic, I know, but when thinking of taking control of the french fleet, their bases in North Africa have to be mentioned, too. Had he occupied Tunis in the east through to casablanca in the west (and imo he wouldnt have needed to man it densily, just at a few key points such as tunis, oran, algiers and casablance) a) the allies would have had a problem launching torch and b) allied convoys through the street of gibraltar could have been attacked with much better results, what with possible axis air fields and submarine basis in northern morrocco etc. Hitler wasn't yet thinking in World war terms at the time, I know, but it cost him, same as his inability to get rid of Britain for good.

I think you are right . These are viable alternatives, but they still require the expenditure of scarce German resources, and there are consequences. Expenditure in these alternatives would have weaken any campaign against Russia, and that was the Main Game, ideologically and in Continental defense.

[Graeme Sydney]

Fighting from the colonies while their whole motherland (including the vichy part in this scenraio) is occupied? Supply should be a major problem then imo, and fear of retribution for their home nation.

Which is what happened, there was Vichy France and some French colonies and there was the Free French and the rest of the colonies. The difference of opinion had them fighting, squabbling and politicking between themselves through out the war and into the 60's.

The supply issues were filled by the arsenal of the democracies (a.k.a. USA).

[BDV]

"Niklas68":Fighting from the colonies while their whole motherland (including the vichy part in this scenraio) is occupied? Supply should be a major problem then imo, and fear of retribution for their home nation.

Which is what happened, there was Vichy France and some French colonies and there was the Free French and the rest of the colonies. The difference of opinion had them fighting, squabbling and politicking between themselves through out the war and into the 60's.

The supply issues were filled by the arsenal of the democracies (a.k.a. USA).

I.E. if Germans ask too much, kiss off North Africa, as colonies rally behind the flag of the Governement in Exile. (And French were somewhat prepared for that; ergo the finest Armee de L'Air assets and the ships sent to colonies away from Adolf's claws.)

The only question mark is the situation in Corsica, whether France would try make a stand there.

As to what additional unpleasantries would befell the Metropolitan France populace, Norway, Holland, and Poland had their governements in exile, and their people survived.


P.S. Also the Channel Islands would be defended by British, now with French Naval assets opposing Germany. Overall, all reasons Germany jumped at the French request for terms, historically.

[Niklas68]

Fighting from the colonies while their whole motherland (including the vichy part in this scenraio) is occupied? Supply should be a major problem then imo, and fear of retribution for their home nation.

Which is what happened, there was Vichy France and some French colonies and there was the Free French and the rest of the colonies. The difference of opinion had them fighting, squabbling and politicking between themselves through out the war and into the 60's.

The supply issues were filled by the arsenal of the democracies (a.k.a. USA).

Hi Graeme, good post, I see your point, but its not quite what I was thinking of and referring to. We re speaking of how could (or ideally should) the peace agreements in 1940 (france - germany) paned out.

Vichy France could only exist because of this treaty with germany and the north african coast was left with France for that same reason, The french troops there didnt fight germany, actually they even put up a - somewhat feeble - resistenace to the torch landings late in 1942.

Those french troops that indeed did fight germany were neither in Vichy nor in Northern africa, they operated from overseas or were in the UK, in zones that couldnt be reached by germany or as in UK were german enemies. So I dont see the connection.

At any rate, I mentioned this and the other example to showcast Hitler didnt think global, while his enemies did, Hitler thought strictly continental.

[Niklas68]

1) Failure to ensure the bulk of the BEF was 'put into the bag' at Dunkirk, and

2) Failure to invade and subjugate the UK - probably Summer 1941.

Tend to agree with this post by Mr Baker.

Not decisively beating England was the major factor for Germany losing the war in the long run, there were plenty other reasons, surely.
IMO The reason why england couldn't be beaten decisively was as I tried to explain in the other post, that Hitler wasnt mentally prepared to fight england because it didnt fit his ideological agenda, he didnt consider it a possibilty he would have to fight them, and thus he didnt prepare Germany for a fight specifically against england, until it was too late. That is not to say he would have prevailed guaranteed otherwise, but he could have made it a little more interesting. They were sort of not fighting on equal terms in a way. England from the get go did everything they could to beat germany while germany's main focus was put somewhere else. For ideological, racial and whatever reasons. My 2 cents

[BDV]

IMO The reason why england couldn't be beaten decisively was as I tried to explain in the other post, that Hitler wasnt mentally prepared to fight england because it didnt fit his ideological agenda, he didnt consider it a possibilty he would have to fight them, and thus he didnt prepare Germany for a fight specifically against england, until it was too late.

That is not correct. Hence the Battleships, the U Boat war, and the airwar over British Isles. Hitler and his coterie of murderous Nazi and Junker sycophants were ready to fight one and all, including such Great Power had-Been's like England.

Now,that Adolf et Co had a nasty surprise that the British Lion had one last roar in it, and claimed post-facto never having wanted to fight that lion, is shown as a lie by German actions and pronouncements before and during the fight.

[Niklas68]

No IM not convinced by that post at all, the gap in perspective is way too wide to ever be bridged, hence we agree to disagree.

[Erwinn]

British was too clever for Hitler to take on, that's why it seems like that to you.

Hitler doesn't like anybody, understand that first.

British adapted a deceptic war and succeed, that's why Germany lost decisively in U-Boat war, in Battle of Britain, in North Africa, wherever British was involved. They simply knew how to push Hitler's buttons, the perfect example being the bombing of Berlin during BoB and afterwards.

[Niklas68]

I agree to an extent erwinn, Britain's ways were more deceptive and they acted way more clever,
but there is imo sufficient evidence that show Hitlers fascination with England and his inclination towards - if possible - forging an alliance with britain or at least not stand in their way, his intention to avoid having to fight them again. From his remarks about not interfering with british interests in his book, to the self imposed limitations according to the naval agreement of 1935, to the order he gave ribbentrop "bring me the alliance with england", to the remark to doniz "I'll make sure we wont need to go to war with england" when donitz wanted at least 300 subs for a possible war with england, to the question to goring "so what we gonna do now" when the declaration of war was handed over" etc etc.

[Paul_G_Baker]

IMO The reason why england couldn't be beaten decisively was as I tried to explain in the other post, that Hitler wasnt mentally prepared to fight england because it didnt fit his ideological agenda, he didnt consider it a possibilty he would have to fight them, and thus he didnt prepare Germany for a fight specifically against england, until it was too late.

That is not correct. Hence the Battleships,

The 'Z Plan Mega-Battleships' were never built. Pobably all they would have done, if they had even been laid down, would have been to spark-off another Naval Arms Race with both Britain and France - as in the run-up to 1914.

the U Boat war,

Begun with a mere handful of ocean-going U-boats (around 30, IIRC).

and the airwar over British Isles.

Which took place after most of the BEF had been evacuated, and after France had been overcome.

Hitler and his coterie of murderous Nazi and Junker sycophants were ready to fight one and all, including such Great Power had-Been's like England.

Now, that Adolf et Co had a nasty surprise that the British Lion had one last roar in it, and claimed post-facto never having wanted to fight that lion, is shown as a lie by German actions and pronouncements before and during the fight.

The questions have to be; would the Lion have carried on if the cream of her army had been made POWs? What of the morale effect of a Military disaster of that magnitude? Could Churchill have survived as Prime Minister, or even as a Cabinet Member?

[Michael Kenny]

The questions have to be; would the Lion have carried on if the cream of her army had been made POWs? What of the morale effect of a Military disaster of that magnitude? Could Churchill have survived as Prime Minister, or even as a Cabinet Member?

Since Churchill did not become Prime Minister until May 10 1940 how would such an event be blamed on him?