Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 11161718192021
Results 201 to 203 of 203

Thread: Why Did Hitler/Germany Lose World War II?

  1. #201
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Georgia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Confederate States Confederate States
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    14 Posts
    I think just like the War of Northern Aggression could have been brought to a quick end with the Battle of First Manassas, World War II could have been shortened if not ended at least on the Western Front at Dunkirk.

    About one year later Operation Barbarossa would still have been inevitable as the "Beast" (borrowing this name from Saga's song "The Snow Fell - "), perhaps even sooner as the "Beast" needed to be stopped and should never be allowed to enter European and Western Civilization soil. We mustn't forget that the "Beast" was only able to be successful because of the USA. The US supplying the Soviet Union as well as the English, to name of few of the countries being supplied, monetarily as well as with whatever weapons of war were necessary. The Lend-Lease policy became effective 9 month before Germany declared war against the USA. The "Destroyers for Bases Agreement" became effective even earlier.

    I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past.
    Patrick Henry

  2. #202
    Still just only death
    Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    1,452 Posts
    The main reason is a lack of oil: the oil with which the German army could've become fully motorized/mechanized, it makes a huge difference. HoM made a thread about this subject once. And here TIK sheds light on the issue too.

    * But other reasons include: increasingly sloppy staff work under the pressure of collapsing fronts as well as wishful thinking on the part of political and military leaders, to an extent the result of National Socialist doctrine - specifically the belief that iron will can overcome any obstacle. But at the same time, and far more so than that, a vague belief that everything will always work out in the end, as had happened in the early stage of the war. A sort of hope that solutions will always emerge when confronted with new problems. For example, As David Stahel explains: there was zero chance of the Germans ever taking Moscow in 1941. If you look at a nice map like the one below, you may be under the impression that the Germans are about to break into Moscow, but the tip of these arrows on the map merely represent the vanguard of German divisions on the offensive, each now stretched out over 120 kilometers or more - simply because of a lack of fuel and wear and tear. In order to just get some tanks and trucks moving it has become necessary to drain all other vehicles from fuel. in other words: only a very small number of troops and material are at the point of the furthest advance, the rest may be limping well over 100 kilometers behind, some are unable to move at all. Of entire Army Group Center, only 4 divisions are still attacking at the moment in time this map depicts. The rest are completely burnt out and a shell of their former selves. Yet the main thing to take away here is: the Germans are still attacking. At the same time the Germans do not merely face Soviet armies in and around Moscow, a Soviet reserve front is forming behind Moscow. And behind that reserve front, another reserve front is taking shape. The Germans assumed they had destroyed the Red Army four times already prior to the Battle for Moscow, after the cauldron battles for Minsk, Smolensk, Kiev and Vyazma, every time believing that the Red Army would not be able to reconstitute itself. Yet Stalin was simply waiting for the German offensive to lose steam to unleash a massive counter offensive with reserves the Germans aren't even aware of against weakened German units. The Germans capturing Moscow in 1941 - in December or much earlier - seems unthinkable.

    In the last stage of the assault, the only thing the Germans were still able to do was to grind towards the Soviet capital, pushing back the Soviets forces right in front of them - there were no more fancy manoeuvres and encirclements. Also: When Operation Typhoon started, the battle for Moscow that is, the Germans had first wanted to encircle the city - this was simply impossible. Moscow is fortified and several times the size of Stalingrad - to have an inner ring of German armies keeping the defenders inside while an outer ring of armies keeps the attackers outside belongs to the realm of military fiction. There are just no enough troops and fuel to do this, no means of supplying such a force adequately even if it existed.

    At the same time to the south, coinciding with the struggle for Moscow, Weich's Second Army which had just taken Kursk and was completely at the end of its tether and at the end of a very long supply chain. Weichs was ordered to move up to Vorozneh, hundreds of kilometers to the East. This was irrational and physically impossible, the entire Second Army should've created winter quarters instead. The handful of soldiers which set off to complete this task never got anywhere near Vorozneh. The Germans, instead of preparing for the logistical mess they would encounter in the USSR to the best of their ability, banked on capturing thousands of Soviet locomotives in the opening months of Operation Barbarossa - yet they only captured 1000 locomotives, of which only 500 were operational. A mere fraction of what they needed. All of this just to illustrate how out of touch with reality the German High Command was when things got bad - and Hitler certainly made them worse. Historians often talk about the cult of the offensive in relation to the Great War and WW1 armies, especially the French, but if you think about it: the Wehrmacht took the cult of the offensive to a whole other level in WW2.

    * Because Operation Barbarossa failed: it could only have become a success if the Germans achieved all their war aims - destroying the Red Army, capturing key cities and wrecking Soviet industry/economy.

    * Because of a lack of Axis unity and the absence of a unified strategy: Combining Germany's war goals with those of other Axis powers with their various agendas, never really worked out - just think of the spat between Romania and Hungary, Italy invading Greece or Japan's decision to strike the Western colonial powers instead of the USSR. Unlike the allies and the USSR, whom did have a clear, single goal in mind.

    * Because of the USA's industrial might. It played its role even before America's entry in the war.

    * Because the Germans didn't have a serious Med/Middle Eastern strategy. And perhaps not even a serious war strategy at all beyond the Fall of France in June 1940.

    * Because of too much inner strive within the Reich - between party officials all interested in protecting and expanding their own fiefdoms - and due to the dubious loyalty of some members of the military apparatus.

    * Because the Germans neglected to build a few hundred submarines prior to the war.

    * Because of a lack of trained replacements (Germany only reinstated conscription in 1935).

    * Because the German economy only geared up for total war in 1943, and then the focus still remained on creating quality products instead of on quantity - in a war which is all about quantity. For example: it could be argued that instead of investing in resource draining projects such as the King Tiger, Germany would've been better off investing in anti-tank guns and artillery from 1943 on. Or in high end classic fighter planes instead of next gen experimental jets.
    "Anyone who hasn’t experienced the ecstasy of betrayal knows nothing about ecstasy at all." – Jean Genet

  3. #203
    Senior Member
    Astragoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Last Online
    4 Hours Ago @ 11:39 PM
    United States United States
    New York New York
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    552 Posts
    Germany lost the war because they never really had a chance to win it in the first place.

    One interesting thing I heard on the Orthodox Nationalist podcast once is that freak ice storm that halted
    the German army might have been demonic in nature.
    One of the things written on the wall where they killed the Tzar was something like
    "here lies the Tzar killed on the command of unseen forces."
    He thought that storm was not in any way natural. If theres any one regime in history that
    was demonic in nature then it was surely the USSR.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Astragoth For This Useful Post:

Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 11161718192021

Similar Threads

  1. Germany Tracing Its War Dead From World War II
    By Fredericus Rex in forum The German Countries
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, May 9th, 2012, 10:31 AM
  2. Race After Hitler: American GIs in Post-War Germany
    By Joe McCarthy in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Thursday, March 18th, 2010, 05:11 AM
  3. Hitler Was Hypnotized During World War I?
    By Taras Bulba in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 12:39 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts