At what point did Germany lose WW2?

[MarkF617]

Why do so many people believe that just because a General or Generals say something can be done that it could be done? Rommel said he could reach Cairo, he was wrong. Manstein said he could relieve Stalingrad, he was wrong. Kesselring and Sperrle said they could destroy the RAF, tjey were wrong. Monty said he could cross the Rhine and clear the channel ports at the same time, he was wrong (and admitted it). History is full of Generals who were wrong.

[MarkF617]

91 pages of people arguing over which of Hitler's blunders cost the 3rd Reich the war. Has it never occured to people that Germany lost the war because the Allies did things right? It was not a single point but many steps taken by the Allies that led to the complete destruction of Nazi Germany.
The first nail in the coffin was when Dowding persuaded the Air Ministry to build a complete air defence network with high performance fighters and an integrated radar and control network. This would be invaluble after the fall of France.
As soon as war broke out the British and the Frence sent purchasing committees to America to help with rearmament. This led in 1940 to Roosevelt setting up the office of production management led by William Knudsen. It was their job to convert American companies to military production. It was this group that ensured that American potential became reality beyond what anyone thought was possible.
Britain standing strong after the fall of France completely knocked the wheels of the Nazi juggernaut. The Germans presumed that if they beat the French then Britain would throw the towel in. When they didn't there were no plans for the next phase. By October the Luftwaffe was defeated, the Royal Navy still ruled the waves so what now? Britain was producing more tanks and aircraft than Germany and were also getting deliveries from America but Germany had no way to beat them. The Soviets, who would have to be fought at some time, were also getting stronger. So it made absolute sense to attack the Soviet Union while Britain's army was still to weak to attack Festung Europa.

More later.

Thanks

Mark.

[MarkF617]

The aims of Barbarossa were to destroy the Soviet army within 500km of the border, it failed. Once again a plan had gone wrong and there was no alternative. I only know a little about the ost front but many posters on this thread say there were few defenders between Smolensk and Moscow. This then is completly the wrong way to go if your aim is to destroy the Soviet army. Better to attack Kiev and take 600,000 prisoners thus keeping with the original aim of the invasion. The fact that the re-enforcements were rushed to defend Moscow allowed even more prisoners to be taken and units destroyed but it simply wasn't enough to cause a colapse. So despite what I believe to be the right desision it was, in the end, the Soviet desion to fight on and their ability to form fresh armies that halted the Wermacht in the east not any desisions made by any German (or Austrian).
Many posters on this thread state that the declaration of war against America as the point Germany lost. By this point in the war the Germans and Americans were already shooting at each other. The Americans were building and supplying weapons to Britain and the Soviets (without expecting payment) and the American Generals were already meeting for planning sessions with British Generals. Do you really think America is going to stay out of this war? America was going to join in so the DOW had no affect at all.

More to come


Thanks

Mark.

[MarkF617]

Double post

[HistoryGeek2019]

Britain standing strong after the fall of France completely knocked the wheels of the Nazi juggernaut. The Germans presumed that if they beat the French then Britain would throw the towel in.

Actually, Germany did have a plan for defeating Britain: destroy it with medium bombers (Do-17s, He-111s, Ju-88s). Most of the Luftwaffe in 1940 consisted of medium bombers. Luftewaffe production was concentrated in medium bombers rather than fighters. The Germans believed the pre-war hype that "the bomber will always get through", so they thought they could just seize the northern coast of France and bomb Britain into submission.

Of course, this plan failed horribly. The medium bombers were flimsy aircraft that were easy targets for RAF fighters. Their "escort" heavy fighters (Me-110s) were just as vulnerable.

Since Germany spent 40% of its military budget on the Luftewaffe even before the war, and most of this went into medium bombers, you could say Germany lost the war in the 1930s when they made the blunderous decision to bet the house on medium bombers.

See this thread for supporting data: viewtopic.php?f=76&t=244765

[MarkF617]

Once America was in the war the Western Allies set up the combined Chiefs of Staff to coordinate military action and come up with a united plan for future actions. We always hear about the arguments between the different services and different nationalities but in the end decisions were made and the plans formulated and stuck to. Everything was geared towards the plans including weapons production. Although the Soviet Union was not included in these combined plans general co-ordination was always present and the Western Allies put a lot of effort into supplying the Soviets. This co-ordination was one of the Allies strongest points. Compare this with the Axis where there is no co-ordination what so ever with Japan and the Germans treating Italian, Romanian and Hungarian allies with nothing but contempt. Would it have been possible for these countries to build German vehicles if given the licence? (Genuine question I don't know the answer). What I do know is that Mussolini and Hitler kept each other in the dark and really peed each other off by not informing each other what they were doing.
Late summer 1942, on the surface it looked bad for the Allies. Rommel was 50 miles from Alexandria, the Germans were swarming into ghe Caucasus and the Japanese had stunned the world with their victories. This was to be the Axis high point. It didn't look it at the time, the Axis seemed all conquering, but the Allies now had all their ducks lined up and it was down hill from then on.
In the Middle East Britain had been stretched. They had to fight in the Western desert, East Africa, Syria Iraqand Greece. On top of that, once Japan joined in many Australian units went home and other units were sent east along with re-enforcenents that should have gone to Egypt. By autumn 1942 Greece was lost, Syria, Iraq, and East Africa (and Madagascar) all under British control there were no distactions just 8th Army againt Panzer Armee Afrika. Rommel was doomed with Africa's fate totally sealed by the Torch landings.
In the Caucasus the Germans had, again, surprised the Soviets as they expected an attack against Moscow. Again though the Germans supply lines got too long and the Soviets massed too many men with the inevitable outcome. It doesn't matter if Stalingrad is attacked or not the superior Soviet forces are going to smash the Germans somewhere. The simple fact that the Soviets were attacking all along the line, whereas the Germans could only attack on 1 front with help from their allies, who they showed nothing but condescension, was a sign of weakness. At Kursk they were a spent force grasping at straws.
At the end of the day, yes, Germany made mistskes but all nations did. Do you really think anyone is perfect, that any nation can go through a 6 year war and be perfect? In the end it wasn't this battle or that battle that won the war for the Allies, it was an alliance with superior resources and manpower that co-ordinated their efforts and worked together to a common goal. With hindsight Germany needed Allied mistakes to win so my final comment is German mistakes didn't cost them the war lack of Allies mistakes did as they couldn't win, no matter what they did, the Allies would always win unless at some point someone gave in, but no-one did.

Thanks

Mark.

[Max Payload]

Britain standing strong after the fall of France completely knocked the wheels of the Nazi juggernaut. The Germans presumed that if they beat the French then Britain would throw the towel in.

Actually, Germany did have a plan for defeating Britain: destroy it with medium bombers (Do-17s, He-111s, Ju-88s). Most of the Luftwaffe in 1940 consisted of medium bombers. Luftewaffe production was concentrated in medium bombers rather than fighters. The Germans believed the pre-war hype that "the bomber will always get through", so they thought they could just seize the northern coast of France and bomb Britain into submission.

When was this pre-war plan prepared, and if the plan was to destroy Britain with bombers, why build a fleet of puny twin-engined medium bombers to do it?
And if there actually was a plan to destroy Britain with medium bombers, why was the Sealion invasion plan required?
After the fall of France was the plan not for Britain to come to its senses and seek peace terms in July?
And when that didn’t happen did the the plan not become one of invasion, first clearing the RAF from the airfields and skies of southern England?
Was it not only when that failed and the regime had been embarrassed by an RAF raid on Berlin that the switch to war production and general infrastructure bombing was made?

[HistoryGeek2019]

The Luftewaffe was built around strategic bombing from its inception. Military theorists in the 1920s and 1930s thought that future wars world be dominated by strategic bombers laying waste to cities and industry. Germany bought into the hype and emphasized twin engine medium bombers as its primary air weapon. You can read more about this here:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF ... ffe-1.html

In October 1938, formal plans were issued by Goering to build the Luftewaffe around a fleet of 7,000 Ju-88s.

Hitler was not expecting France and England to go to war over Poland, but when they did, plans were made to seize Northeast France and the Low Countries so that Britain would be in range of German air bases. Adam Tooze describes this in The Wages of Destruction.

Germany got incredibly lucky that they encircled the BEF and French army. If things had merely gone according to plan, Germany would have been in for quite a shock when its medium bombers were obliterated during the initial battle itself, without even getting a chance to attack Britain (Germany lost about 1000 of its 1600 medium bombers during the Battle of France, either permanently or in need of repair).

It just shows how foolish German planning was, even before the war started.

[ljadw]

The Luftewaffe was built around strategic bombing from its inception. Military theorists in the 1920s and 1930s thought that future wars world be dominated by strategic bombers laying waste to cities and industry. Germany bought into the hype and emphasized twin engine medium bombers as its primary air weapon. You can read more about this here:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF ... ffe-1.html

In October 1938, formal plans were issued by Goering to build the Luftewaffe around a fleet of 7,000 Ju-88s.

Hitler was not expecting France and England to go to war over Poland, but when they did, plans were made to seize Northeast France and the Low Countries so that Britain would be in range of German air bases. Adam Tooze describes this in The Wages of Destruction.

Germany got incredibly lucky that they encircled the BEF and French army. If things had merely gone according to plan, Germany would have been in for quite a shock when its medium bombers were obliterated during the initial battle itself, without even getting a chance to attack Britain (Germany lost about 1000 of its 1600 medium bombers during the Battle of France, either permanently or in need of repair).

It just shows how foolish German planning was, even before the war started.

That is not correct : it is the opposite : the LW was built as a tactical air force,the dreams of Wever (Ural Bomber ) were rightly buried with Wever himself : Germany had not the means for a strategical air force .
Other point : 7000 JU 88 is too much : Goering wanted 5000 JU 88 ..in 1943 .
Before the war Goering said : Hitler will not ask how big our aircraft are, but how many aircraft we have .

[ljadw]

The JU 88 was planned as a high speed medium bomber, but there were several variants ,there was also a JU 88 fighter ,of which 4000 were produced,mostly in 1944 .
The JU 88 production started only in 1940 .At the start of the war there was a planned combat aircraft production of 8oo for June 1940,of which 200 JU 88 bombers .

[HistoryGeek2019]

The Luftewaffe started the Battle of France with 1600 medium bombers. These are strategic weapons. They are of zero value on the battlefield because they are too inaccurate not to hit your own troops.

The tactical bombers (Stukas) were a tiny minority in the Luftewaffe and only continued in existence because Richthofen saw their value in the Spanish Civil War. But Goering was in charge and wanted a shiny fleet of strategic medium bombers that would win the war on their own by pulverizing enemy cities and industry.

These are facts. "The Luftewaffe was a tactical air force" is a popular myth. Read Adam Tooze and the link I gave above.

[MarkF617]

Hello,

Tactical bombing includes more than just battlefield close support. It also includes such things as interdicting reserves, destroying bridges, taking out HQs and supply depots, attacking shipping and lines of communication. Germany's medium bomber force was very capable of performing these tasks.
Early in the war the power of bombers were massively over rated. Pre war it was believed that a couple of thousand medium bombers could destroy a city in a couple of days. This was only disproved against London, but both sides still overestimated what could be achieved.

Thanks

Mark.

[Aida1]

German generals were oblivious to logistical constraints and were trained to attack, attack, attack. Withdrawing was tantamount to admitting defeat, and they couldn't stay where they were because they were being beaten by the superior Red Army in August 1941. And Moscow seemed like a shiny object that supposedly would end all resistance if captured (this had been advocated in the First World War as well when the Bolsheviks were inciting resistance in German occupied territories under Brest-Litovsk). So of course the generals would say "Attack toward Moscow, our superior German soldiers will prevail!"

Very simplistic. If the German army was beaten in august, it is very strange that it obtained the successes it did in september and october.

Successes which resulted in failure .

Nonense. Successes do not result in failure. There was failure to totally defeat the red army despite the successes.

[Aida1]

The Luftewaffe started the Battle of France with 1600 medium bombers. These are strategic weapons. They are of zero value on the battlefield because they are too inaccurate not to hit your own troops.

The tactical bombers (Stukas) were a tiny minority in the Luftewaffe and only continued in existence because Richthofen saw their value in the Spanish Civil War. But Goering was in charge and wanted a shiny fleet of strategic medium bombers that would win the war on their own by pulverizing enemy cities and industry.

These are facts. "The Luftewaffe was a tactical air force" is a popular myth. Read Adam Tooze and the link I gave above.

Wrong. Tactical bombing also includes bombing behind the front lines against artillery,rail targets, bridges,supply depots etc...German medium bombers were suitable for thuis. Strategic bombing is against enemy industry and population centres.

[Aida1]

Hello,

Tactical bombing includes more than just battlefield close support. It also includes such things as interdicting reserves, destroying bridges, taking out HQs and supply depots, attacking shipping and lines of communication. Germany's medium bomber force was very capable of performing these tasks.
Early in the war the power of bombers were massively over rated. Pre war it was believed that a couple of thousand medium bombers could destroy a city in a couple of days. This was only disproved against London, but both sides still overestimated what could be achieved.

Thanks

Mark.

Very true.