Jump to content
Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Recommended Posts

Nazis lost the war due to TOO Many guarding POW & Death Camps & other locales alone.

IE

V1, V2 rockets & Wonder  weapons.

How much of the Army guarded POW camps & death Camps or just SS Forces nationwide.

& RR lines??

Had those camps reduced guard forces we'd  have  more  Forces in Normandy for June 1944.( To Counter Allied forces)

Please verify, test ideas.

Xs the guard force per  POW camp & Death camps alone since 1942-1945.

& add SS/Gestapo forces for POW,  Death Camp security.

 

Ideas, comments, thoughts.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if the guarding of the camps cost the Nazis the war but I do know that the whole logistics of transporting 15 million (or more) jews and others to the concentration camps put a heavy strain on the German-run railroads. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmm I think the general quality of the guards where not crack soldiers.  Also have you considered the fact that the Allies had to guard the Axis prisoners of war or the enormous war effort that was put in place building the ships, planes, tanks etc - one example was the building of Liberty ships - the equivalent of 2 were completed every day for 4 years!

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah agreed, you don't use crack troops to guard (or gass) woman and children. Any #@$%@#$ who knows how to handle a machinegun will do just fine for that. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did the Axis lose the war ? Because they got themselves into the ridiculous situation where they were at war with the USSR, the USA, and the British Commonwealth simultaneously.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Joris said:

I'm not sure if the guarding of the camps cost the Nazis the war but I do know that the whole logistics of transporting 15 million (or more) jews and others to the concentration camps put a heavy strain on the German-run railroads. 

 

Had to drain GermanArmy of needed men IF guarding POW & death camps etc alone aside X Projects IE the V2, V1

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Montys Boys said:

hmmm I think the general quality of the guards where not crack soldiers.  Also have you considered the fact that the Allies had to guard the Axis prisoners of war or the enormous war effort that was put in place building the ships, planes, tanks etc - one example was the building of Liberty ships - the equivalent of 2 were completed every day for 4 years!

 

 

Yes we had some POW camps & guarding our bases  & key defense plants BUT we didnt guard prisoners for genocide either, so our Guard ratio had to be Less than the Germans alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it be that Hitler tried to take on the Great Bear at the same time he was fighting a war in the West.  His general staff consisted of around 9 people while the Pentagon had hundreds to do the planning.  They were over whelmed.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Nazis lost WW2 because Hitler, (a bloody incompetent corporal), insisted on detailing the specifics of campaigns. While the plans laid down by Wehrmacht's general staff won them France Hitler insisted on letting the British expeditionary force escape when he let Göring take the lead in bombing them. Not only did they botch the plans Luftwaffe had for reducing British defenses when they reordered to bomb cities as petty revenge, but they insisted on a two front war with operation Barbarrossa, nay, a three front war when they went to the aid of Mussolini before Barbarossa.

Then there were the grandiose schemes. Building giant guns and giant tanks. While at the same time Hitler stopped the production of assault rifles and jeg fighters. Last but not least, spending logistical resources on cruel and cowardly genocide against civilians. I repeat: Hitler lost the war all by himself.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, all contributed but my focus was on manpower guarding POW & Death camps alone Xthe guards required for guarding from Germany, Poland, Czech, Austria, etc alone,  That was my issue.  I agree Hitler was a non techie IE to V2 V1 & jet fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Stephen N Russell said:

Had to drain GermanArmy of needed men IF guarding POW & death camps etc alone aside X Projects IE the V2, V1

No, I don't agree with you. Anybody can sit in a guard tower and guard women, children, and prisoners of war, but not everybody is cut out to be a frontline soldier. A lot of the guards were not even Germans, a lot of the guards were from the occupied territories in the east like the Ukraine. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germany was drafting one legged 45 year old men by the end of 1944.  They also used 14 year old boys.  Germany is the size of Wisconsin.  They ran out of men by late 1944.  They were using men from conquered countries that did not want to fight.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Per Christian Veberg said:

The Nazis lost WW2 because Hitler, (a bloody incompetent corporal), insisted on detailing the specifics of campaigns. While the plans laid down by Wehrmacht's general staff won them France Hitler insisted on letting the British expeditionary force escape when he let Göring take the lead in bombing them. Not only did they botch the plans Luftwaffe had for reducing British defenses when they reordered to bomb cities as petty revenge, but they insisted on a two front war with operation Barbarrossa, nay, a three front war when they went to the aid of Mussolini before Barbarossa.

Then there were the grandiose schemes. Building giant guns and giant tanks. While at the same time Hitler stopped the production of assault rifles and jeg fighters. Last but not least, spending logistical resources on cruel and cowardly genocide against civilians. I repeat: Hitler lost the war all by himself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitler had the 262 jet fighter but chose to make heavy tanks instead.  He ran out of men because of his three front war.  Hitler did not understand how European wars were fought.  "Take as much territory as you can then sue for peace."  He would have kept Alsace, Lorain, The Sudetenland.  Austria, 1/2 of Poland.  His generals knew how European war were fought but Hitler ignored them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Nazis lost the war because they had very little natural resources outside there own borders and failed to gain control of those they sought to capture. Their supply lines became over stretched and their manpower dwindled in the face of two fronts. Had the Germans been able to defeat Great Britain in 1940 then we could be looking at a very different Europe, North Africa and the middle east would have yielded oil to drive the Axis into Russia. USA may not have entered the European theatre without access to bases on British soil meaning they would have only fought back at Japan in the Pacific region. British empire forces may still have influenced far east combat under Australian command giving America an allied force in the far east. Just my opinion so please don't hang me out to dry, a lot of lucky breaks for the Allies and misguided Nazi leadership made victory for the Allies possible.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chris Hazell said:

The Nazis lost the war because they had very little natural resources outside there own borders and failed to gain control of those they sought to capture. Their supply lines became over stretched and their manpower dwindled in the face of two fronts. Had the Germans been able to defeat Great Britain in 1940 then we could be looking at a very different Europe, North Africa and the middle east would have yielded oil to drive the Axis into Russia. USA may not have entered the European theatre without access to bases on British soil meaning they would have only fought back at Japan in the Pacific region. British empire forces may still have influenced far east combat under Australian command giving America an allied force in the far east. Just my opinion so please don't hang me out to dry, a lot of lucky breaks for the Allies and misguided Nazi leadership made victory for the Allies possible.

The oil in the Middle east was not yet developed I think? The Germans had oil fields in allied Romania and the were driving towards Sovjet oil fields in the south before Hitler, (again the doofus) redirected them towards Stalingrad were he again botched the plans by letting Göring use Luftwaffe how he wanted. Thereby creating rubble out of the city's streets and houses that suited the Sovjets defensive needs far better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Germans were actually fighting on 3 fronts, Russia, Italy, and the western front.  They were led by Hitler and Goring both of which were out of their league when it came to the military knowledge..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/10/2017 at 7:57 AM, Lyle Zerla said:

The Germans were actually fighting on 3 fronts, Russia, Italy, and the western front.  They were led by Hitler and Goring both of which were out of their league when it came to the military knowledge..

Plus in the skies over the Reich and in the Atlantic.

Even if Hitler and Goring had both possessed Military genius the eventual outcome was never in doubt from the begining of 1943.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Philip Whitehouse said:

Plus in the skies over the Reich and in the Atlantic.

Even if Hitler and Goring had both possessed Military genius the eventual outcome was never in doubt from the begining of 1943.

 

But that is just it, Philip Whitehouse, the war by 43 was set up by Hitlers incompetence. It meant no jet fighters until it was to late and no assault rifles as standard equipment for the troops. It also meant the losses of Stalingrad and Kursk. Without Hitler and Göring in cahoots Dunkirk would have been the end of the British Expeditionary Force. There are plenty of other factors where Hitlers inability played in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Per Christian Veberg said:

But that is just it, Philip Whitehouse, the war by 43 was set up by Hitlers incompetence. It meant no jet fighters until it was to late and no assault rifles as standard equipment for the troops. It also meant the losses of Stalingrad and Kursk. Without Hitler and Göring in cahoots Dunkirk would have been the end of the British Expeditionary Force. There are plenty of other factors where Hitlers inability played in.

Regardless of the availability of ME-262s and assault rifles, in the end it would have made little material difference. There's just no way that Nazi Germany could have prevailed against the massive forces ranged against it.

Agreed, it was Hitler's incompetence that he managed to get his regime into such a hopeless position in the first place.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Philip Whitehouse said:

Regardless of the availability of ME-262s and assault rifles, in the end it would have made little material difference. There's just no way that Nazi Germany could have prevailed against the massive forces ranged against it.

Agreed, it was Hitler's incompetence that he managed to get his regime into such a hopeless position in the first place.

The Sovjet Union was actually close to collapsing due to shortage of manpower. That is how high their losses were. The same can be said about the battle of the Atlantic. Only in tonnage and supply rate in stead of men. It almost got to the point were it could choke off the British war effort. Without the miracle at Dunkirk it would have been very hard to rebuild the British army as well. It would have been down to nukes in the end, (or so is my belief). The Nazis came scaringly close to a win against the odds stacked against them and only Hitlers incompetence stalled their armed forces.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2017 at 1:52 PM, Lyle Zerla said:

Germany was drafting one legged 45 year old men by the end of 1944.  They also used 14 year old boys.  Germany is the size of Wisconsin.  They ran out of men by late 1944.  They were using men from conquered countries that did not want to fight.

Sure it was the same size of Wisconsin but they had a lot more people living there. Plus all the Austrians (who still consider themselves victims) and the men from occupied territories that wanted to fight for the Nazis. A lot of men, but not enough, thank god!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/10/2017 at 10:44 AM, Per Christian Veberg said:

The Sovjet Union was actually close to collapsing due to shortage of manpower. That is how high their losses were. The same can be said about the battle of the Atlantic. Only in tonnage and supply rate in stead of men. It almost got to the point were it could choke off the British war effort. Without the miracle at Dunkirk it would have been very hard to rebuild the British army as well. It would have been down to nukes in the end, (or so is my belief). The Nazis came scaringly close to a win against the odds stacked against them and only Hitlers incompetence stalled their armed forces.

I would agree that in 1942 things looked grim indeed: that was the high water mark of Axis expansion.

But,as mentioned, by early 1943 the picture was gradually changing and the ultimate defeat of the axis became only a matter of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×