Jump to content
Wednesday, July 12, 2017
  • Welcome to the forum!

    Welcome to the War History Online Community Forum, please register or login to start commenting.

Stephen N Russell

Why Nazis Lost the War

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Philip Whitehouse said:

I was disputing the statement that the Scots had "not a drop of Germanic blood between them". Hence the brief discourse on genetics.

OK sorry , must read more clearly. Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2017 at 1:27 AM, Stephen N Russell said:

& Stalin killed many officers prior WW2 aside Polish officers in 1940. Thus lost  Leadership  for battles ahead

After a couple of previous visits to Leningrad... ooops! St Petersburg! I finally managed to visit Moscow two years back. I took an official city tour based on the Metro system. Very strange feeling.Bear in mind that in 1991, when the USSR collapsed, Moscow University closed down its history faculty, which had for decades been peddling an obediently propagandist view of "history". All the text books needed re-writing before the faculty could re-open. Moscow's metro system was built in the 1930s, predominantly by slave labour - using expendable political prisoners. At the time, Stalin was maintaining control largely through sheer terror. The tiniest infraction could result in you being arrested, tried, and sent to a camp.The Soviet economy came to rest, in part, on this constant supply of expendable free labour. People were getting arrested simply because the prison system needed more customers; you didn't NEED to have broken the law! Modern Russia is proud of the Metro system... but has conveniently forgotten the underlying story.That people were being arrested at random and sent to a Gulag is not something they care to remember. So they simply don't remember it. So, not just officers: people generally. Stalin murdered more Russians than Hitler ever did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2017 at 10:22 PM, Stephen N Russell said:

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.

Ok, so, hi.  Dan here, nice to find this forum, and meet a whole pile of new faces with a similar interest.

The Wonder Weapons.  V1's, V2's.  Honestly?  They started too late.  Yes, obvious observation, but given more time than they had, and more materiel effort than was allocated, they would have payed off.  Look at the devastating effect the Nebelwerfer and the Katyusha had on morale on the battlefield.  Figure that production would have increased, and the technology would have been sufficiently increased to affect the balance.  Instead, manpower and scientific effort was wasted on genetic experimentation, as well as such bizarre pursuits as religious and occult artifacts.  As for security forces there, I would go on a similar basis, and guard those like the devil himself, especially if I was the sole, presumed or otherwise possessor of said technology, in any state of development.

 

Secondly, most security battalions providing defense of rail rights of way, major highways, etc... They usually consisted of second and third-line troops.  They double as a local defense network, tying in with their battalion, sector, and regional command.  They already factor into the defense network of a theater command's viewpoint.  In other words, filler, or in those days, 'replacements'.  Vital work against saboteurs, which history shows were actively engaged, as well as partisans.  Security for security's sake is troops well employed, as logistics is the key to any army.

 

As for the death camps.  Ok, now here's where the math is... in my opinion, multiplied.  Hitler's fixation on the Jewry affected his manpower reserves at least two to threefold.  Firstly, those SS battalions attached to the extermination and work camps did affect the manpower reserves afforded them, but to be fair, most camp guards were SS Divisions, under the control of Himmler.  He did his level best to deny applicants to the OKW, and as the war progressed, he lowered the SS standards to such a point as to outman the German Army in it's own right.  Furthermore, to go back to the Jewry.  The targeting of followers of Judaism, homosexuals, undesirables, etc...  This hurt manpower greatly, as most members of aforementioned groups thought themselves to be upstanding German citizens, and would gladly have volunteered for service, had they not been persecuted, experimented on, oppressed, and exterminated.  Thus, a vast potential pool of manpower was thus relegated to menial labor tasks, or worked to death, or outright killed.

Finally, as for POW camps, they were usually maintained by the same security troops manning right-of-way security duties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Operation Barbarossa. A 1500 mile long supply line is easily picked apart. He also didn't take into consideration Russian Generals Mud and Winter.

2. Battle of Britain. The RAF was doomed. They were losing pilots before they could be replaced. Had he stuck to bombing the air fields, he woyld have had air superiority and Operation Sea Lion might have worked. The US would have had a difficult time bombing Europe.

3. ME 262. A fighter that could easily pull away from our planes. Granted they entered service kinda late in the war, but Hitler's insistance that they be used a bombers instead of fighters did not help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mark Williams said:

1. Operation Barbarossa. A 1500 mile long supply line is easily picked apart. He also didn't take into consideration Russian Generals Mud and Winter.

2. Battle of Britain. The RAF was doomed. They were losing pilots before they could be replaced. Had he stuck to bombing the air fields, he woyld have had air superiority and Operation Sea Lion might have worked. The US would have had a difficult time bombing Europe.

3. ME 262. A fighter that could easily pull away from our planes. Granted they entered service kinda late in the war, but Hitler's insistance that they be used a bombers instead of fighters did not help.

About the ME's.  Thing is, Hitler did more than just insist on that.  He micro-managed.  He chose to impose more and more strict control over the OKW, as he felt he knew better, the longer the war went on, due to no small fact the cocktail of drugs he was 'prescribed'.  It had a deleterious effect on everything he touched.

 

As for the RAF and the Battle of Britain, the flight of bombers hitting Berlin caused an outraged Hitler to reprise, and continue to do so.  THAT is what saved the RAF, as they were at a complete disadvantage due to superior numbers.  The switch to 'terror bombing' (aka demoralization), is what allowed the RAF a breath for replacement, rearmament, and change of tactic.

 

Edited by Dan Carter
Misspelling throughout my reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it could be argued that the V-weapons actually contributed to the defeat of the Nazis. They were terror weapons and had little strategic value. The effort spent on these weapons could have been more profitably used in producing the Me-262 and the Arado Ar-234 jet powered bomber.  The Ar-234 could have been used to bomb the military buildup in England prior to the invasion.

One of the problems the Germans had during the Battle of Britain was the limited time the fighter escorts had over England. I wonder why the Germans never put drop tanks on their Bf-109s to extend their range.

How many realize that the Germans had more than 30,000 bombs and artillery shells loaded with Sarin nerve gas hidden in Poland that Hitler never used. It is amazing thad Hitler did not use them in the last days of the war when he decided to let Germany go down with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Robert Naumann said:

I think it could be argued that the V-weapons actually contributed to the defeat of the Nazis. They were terror weapons and had little strategic value. The effort spent on these weapons could have been more profitably used in producing the Me-262 and the Arado Ar-234 jet powered bomber.  The Ar-234 could have been used to bomb the military buildup in England prior to the invasion.

One of the problems the Germans had during the Battle of Britain was the limited time the fighter escorts had over England. I wonder why the Germans never put drop tanks on their Bf-109s to extend their range.

How many realize that the Germans had more than 30,000 bombs and artillery shells loaded with Sarin nerve gas hidden in Poland that Hitler never used. It is amazing thad Hitler did not use them in the last days of the war when he decided to let Germany go down with him.

Ok, that is a very fair point on the V weapon program.  But, look at it from a different perspective.  If more effort had been expended earlier on, how much farther would the technology had come?  Suddenly, terror weapon can become strategic theater weapon.It was a matter of allocation that doomed said project to 'Terror' status.  I agree with the expanded effort on the jet programme, however.  That would have been a bigger value-for-expenditure effort, never fully realized.  As for drop tanks, well... Considering that they were able to carry only 2 300 litre drop tanks, that would extend their operational time by 1 to 2 hours, not factoring in combat.  They were at their operational peak, due to distances involved, and the extent of the technology.  Britain also had the advantage of being the defender, which meant they could wait for the aggressor to come to them.  Cost savings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's my opinion that you can't narrow down just once cause or reason for losing the war. But, some decisions were worse than others. I think that if I only one choice as to which was the cause of them losing the war, it would have to be the United States entering the War. Nevermind the Russians, recentlyI read several news reports stating that Stalin was very paranoid od Hitler and was quietly plotting to attack Germany, Hitler caught wind of it and decided to attack first. Which was one of the reasons Hitler diverted his Panzer Divisions from Moscow to Stalingrad. As a big FU to Stalin, and we know what happened next Winter came, that diversion cost Germany. Either way the USA entering the War opened up a western Front that needed defending. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robert Naumann said:

I think it could be argued that the V-weapons actually contributed to the defeat of the Nazis. They were terror weapons and had little strategic value. The effort spent on these weapons could have been more profitably used in producing the Me-262 and the Arado Ar-234 jet powered bomber.  The Ar-234 could have been used to bomb the military buildup in England prior to the invasion.

One of the problems the Germans had during the Battle of Britain was the limited time the fighter escorts had over England. I wonder why the Germans never put drop tanks on their Bf-109s to extend their range.

How many realize that the Germans had more than 30,000 bombs and artillery shells loaded with Sarin nerve gas hidden in Poland that Hitler never used. It is amazing thad Hitler did not use them in the last days of the war when he decided to let Germany go down with him.

Aromatic Hydrocarbons were discovered pretty much at the same time in Germany, by A.G. Farben, and in Canada by ICI (Canada) both companies were looking for a stronger insecticide. Both realised, at about the same tine, that they had stumbled upon an amazing new kind of weapon: nerve gasses. ICI at that point lost interest, AG Farben handed over their research to the German government... and STOPPED PUBLISHING PAPERS. Germany assumed, from ICI also ceasing to publish research papers, that nerve gasses must now continue to beworked on by the Brits... but in secret. The reason why Germany didn't use Sarin is simple. They thought that they'd be subject to immediate retaliation. The Allies knew About Sarin, CMPF, Tabun and the rest, and made it clear to the Germans that we knew. We also "leaked" through double agents, that we had massive stockpiles of our own, and would be perfectly willing to drop it day and night on every town in Germany. Hell, by that point, we were already bombing the crap out of Germany.

Could the V2 have carried a nerve gas payload? One weird thing about the V2 was that it made a much smaller bang when it landed than the V1 had. The V2 was a ballistic missile that went into partial orbit on its way to the target.... and then RE-ENTERED the atmosphere. These days, we know about re-entry, and how HOT things get. The Germans didn't. They couldn't understand why their explosive laden missiles kept on exploding before they were supposed to. So they tried much weaker explosives, which didn't prematurely detonate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of above replies have pros and cons, looking at different point of views and logistics and possibilities. 
Nevertheless war is full of many different decitions that are followed by multiple more actions and give variety of results.  

Noone can disagree with the ULTIMATE #1 fact .

If Nazis had completely built and launched first their atomic bomb, surrender of the allies would be the only thing left. 

Just like it happened with the Japs.  The Russians and US knew he was building it and raced to build it first.
The saddest part is they used it while they didn't had to, specially in a civiian populated city.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vasilis Tsialtas said:

All of above replies have pros and cons, looking at different point of views and logistics and possibilities. 
Nevertheless war is full of many different decitions that are followed by multiple more actions and give variety of results.  

Noone can disagree with the ULTIMATE #1 fact .

If Nazis had completely built and launched first their atomic bomb, surrender of the allies would be the only thing left. 

Just like it happened with the Japs.  The Russians and US knew he was building it and raced to build it first.
The saddest part is they used it while they didn't had to, specially in a civiian populated city.
 

Ultimate Fact  ??: Actually the chances are that the British would have beaten the Nazis to the punch regarding the development of nuclear weapons.  ref "Tube Alloys".  Churchill was writing of Atomic bombs in the late 1920s, following H.G Wells' writing on the same subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vasilis Tsialtas said:

Just like it happened with the Japs.  The Russians and US knew he was building it and raced to build it first.
The saddest part is they used it while they didn't had to, specially in a civiian populated city.
 

Can you imagine the uproar had we not used the atomic bombs, we invaded, lost 100s of thousands of lives (which was expected), the Russians would have had more time to secure more territory and then the public found out we had the means to end the war quickly?

I had 6 uncles in the Pacific Theater, 4 Navy and two army, one in actual airborne training to jump into Japan. One Navy who survived Pearl Harbor and one who survived an explosion on a carrier when his ship was along side fighting fires. Odds were not in their favor for all to survive.  I for one think the bombs had to be used, and in a way that put so much pressure on the Japanese they had to surrender.

BTW, in my picture in front of the Missouri, I'm wearing a USS California cap, the ship my uncle was on at Pearl Harbor.

 

Edited by Carl Grimm
added a line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dan Carter said:

Ok, that is a very fair point on the V weapon program.  But, look at it from a different perspective.  If more effort had been expended earlier on, how much farther would the technology had come?  Suddenly, terror weapon can become strategic theater weapon.It was a matter of allocation that doomed said project to 'Terror' status.  I agree with the expanded effort on the jet programme, however.  That would have been a bigger value-for-expenditure effort, never fully realized.  As for drop tanks, well... Considering that they were able to carry only 2 300 litre drop tanks, that would extend their operational time by 1 to 2 hours, not factoring in combat.  They were at their operational peak, due to distances involved, and the extent of the technology.  Britain also had the advantage of being the defender, which meant they could wait for the aggressor to come to them.  Cost savings.

Given the fact that the 109s could only spend 5 -10 minutes over the target, the extra range provided by a drop tank could have been crucial.  Also it would have cut the number that went down in the Channel on the return trip. I just think it is strange that the Germans with all their technology never used this rather obvious method to extend the range o their escort fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The atomic bombs probably save more Japanese than they killed. The submarine blockade of Japan was so complete near the war's end that nothing could go in or out. The resources on the island of Japan could not sustain their population and we could have simply starved them out had we wanted to.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mark Williams said:

1. Operation Barbarossa. A 1500 mile long supply line is easily picked apart. He also didn't take into consideration Russian Generals Mud and Winter.

2. Battle of Britain. The RAF was doomed. They were losing pilots before they could be replaced. Had he stuck to bombing the air fields, he woyld have had air superiority and Operation Sea Lion might have worked. The US would have had a difficult time bombing Europe.

3. ME 262. A fighter that could easily pull away from our planes. Granted they entered service kinda late in the war, but Hitler's insistance that they be used a bombers instead of fighters did not help.

Interesting view of the Battle of Britain, but sadly, not a view supported by the facts. Both sides exaggerated the number of "kills", but it looks in retrospect as if the RAF's figures were closer to the truth that the Luftwaffe's. Also (the clue's in the NAME) This was the Battle of BRITAIN, Guess where it took place?! For the most part, over SE England.meaning that if a pilot got shot down, if he flew foor the RAF, chances are he's be back in action the next day, but if he flew for the Luftwaffe... he became a PoW. (Only ONE Luftwaffe PoW escaped from captivity, during the entire course of WW2.) The Empire Training Scheme continued to churn out new pilotsm for the RAF. We were in somewhat better shape than the Germans: it was the first time that they'd been thwarted: a new (and unpleasant) experience for them. It does however beg the question "So what?!" We remember the Battle of Britain because the UK was in need of a victory, and it conveniently provided one.Was it Strategically important? Possibly less so than the Naval battles off of Narvik had been. Germany lost almost the entirety of its inshore fleet. If you're planning to move men across 20 odd miles of water, in a war against the nation with what was at the time the world's biggest navy... expect to lose a LOT of men, especially if you you've lost what few escort vessels you had to protect them. In pretty much every wargamed re-enactment of "what would have happened??" The answer is that the Germans managed to put men ashore.. and lost them, had to send the transports back to pick up more, and the second wave didn't survive to make the return trip.No Dunkirk for the Germans,

The Me262 faced unique problems: Firstly, it was operating in circumstances where the USAF and RAF enjoyed massive air superiority. It had serious problems when coming in to land: Allied fighters cruised around looking for airfields to shoot up. The 262's fuel consumption wasn't great, it could fly for a while, outperform most other aircraft for a while... and then had to head back to base where it was at its weakest, and hope that it didn't fall prey to a patrolling "Jabo" as it tried to land...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Robert Naumann said:

I think it could be argued that the V-weapons actually contributed to the defeat of the Nazis. They were terror weapons and had little strategic value. The effort spent on these weapons could have been more profitably used in producing the Me-262 and the Arado Ar-234 jet powered bomber.  The Ar-234 could have been used to bomb the military buildup in England prior to the invasion.

One of the problems the Germans had during the Battle of Britain was the limited time the fighter escorts had over England. I wonder why the Germans never put drop tanks on their Bf-109s to extend their range.

How many realize that the Germans had more than 30,000 bombs and artillery shells loaded with Sarin nerve gas hidden in Poland that Hitler never used. It is amazing thad Hitler did not use them in the last days of the war when he decided to let Germany go down with him.

I agree the "wonder weapons" did not come close to winning the war. But the jet planes if deployed earlier could have. Assuming they would have been ready earlier. Even if Herr Hitler had aimed them at the Normandy beachhead it could have caused a lot of trouble. Thank you agent GARBO for helping bamboozle the nazis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dan Carter said:

Ok, so, hi.  Dan here, nice to find this forum, and meet a whole pile of new faces with a similar interest.

The Wonder Weapons.  V1's, V2's.  Honestly?  They started too late.  Yes, obvious observation, but given more time than they had, and more materiel effort than was allocated, they would have payed off.  Look at the devastating effect the Nebelwerfer and the Katyusha had on morale on the battlefield.  Figure that production would have increased, and the technology would have been sufficiently increased to affect the balance.  Instead, manpower and scientific effort was wasted on genetic experimentation, as well as such bizarre pursuits as religious and occult artifacts.  As for security forces there, I would go on a similar basis, and guard those like the devil himself, especially if I was the sole, presumed or otherwise possessor of said technology, in any state of development.

 

Secondly, most security battalions providing defense of rail rights of way, major highways, etc... They usually consisted of second and third-line troops.  They double as a local defense network, tying in with their battalion, sector, and regional command.  They already factor into the defense network of a theater command's viewpoint.  In other words, filler, or in those days, 'replacements'.  Vital work against saboteurs, which history shows were actively engaged, as well as partisans.  Security for security's sake is troops well employed, as logistics is the key to any army.

 

As for the death camps.  Ok, now here's where the math is... in my opinion, multiplied.  Hitler's fixation on the Jewry affected his manpower reserves at least two to threefold.  Firstly, those SS battalions attached to the extermination and work camps did affect the manpower reserves afforded them, but to be fair, most camp guards were SS Divisions, under the control of Himmler.  He did his level best to deny applicants to the OKW, and as the war progressed, he lowered the SS standards to such a point as to outman the German Army in it's own right.  Furthermore, to go back to the Jewry.  The targeting of followers of Judaism, homosexuals, undesirables, etc...  This hurt manpower greatly, as most members of aforementioned groups thought themselves to be upstanding German citizens, and would gladly have volunteered for service, had they not been persecuted, experimented on, oppressed, and exterminated.  Thus, a vast potential pool of manpower was thus relegated to menial labor tasks, or worked to death, or outright killed.

Finally, as for POW camps, they were usually maintained by the same security troops manning right-of-way security duties.

The  Germans could have had all the Ukrainian and oppressed people's help he needed. Many of Stalin's subjects hated him. But as untermenchen he persecuted them. Arrogance, over and over, I feel strongly that pure old blind arrogance led as much to their downfall as did the Red army et all.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2017 at 11:43 PM, Carl Grimm said:

The United States was the only country that could take on a two front war, mainly due to being pretty much isolated from attack and having the manufacturing base already in place before we got directly involved.  Also had the Pacific war been almost entirely land based like Europe, it would have been more difficult, even for us.

Industrial output on a massive scale. America armed the allies and drafted something like 8,000,000 armed forces personnel.      Canada assisted but with our tiny population we could not have done what the Americans did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Ron Walker said:

Interesting view of the Battle of Britain, but sadly, not a view supported by the facts. Both sides exaggerated the number of "kills", but it looks in retrospect as if the RAF's figures were closer to the truth that the Luftwaffe's. Also (the clue's in the NAME) This was the Battle of BRITAIN, Guess where it took place?! For the most part, over SE England.meaning that if a pilot got shot down, if he flew foor the RAF, chances are he's be back in action the next day, but if he flew for the Luftwaffe... he became a PoW. (Only ONE Luftwaffe PoW escaped from captivity, during the entire course of WW2.) The Empire Training Scheme continued to churn out new pilotsm for the RAF. We were in somewhat better shape than the Germans: it was the first time that they'd been thwarted: a new (and unpleasant) experience for them. It does however beg the question "So what?!" We remember the Battle of Britain because the UK was in need of a victory, and it conveniently provided one.Was it Strategically important? Possibly less so than the Naval battles off of Narvik had been. Germany lost almost the entirety of its inshore fleet. If you're planning to move men across 20 odd miles of water, in a war against the nation with what was at the time the world's biggest navy... expect to lose a LOT of men, especially if you you've lost what few escort vessels you had to protect them. In pretty much every wargamed re-enactment of "what would have happened??" The answer is that the Germans managed to put men ashore.. and lost them, had to send the transports back to pick up more, and the second wave didn't survive to make the return trip.No Dunkirk for the Germans,

The Me262 faced unique problems: Firstly, it was operating in circumstances where the USAF and RAF enjoyed massive air superiority. It had serious problems when coming in to land: Allied fighters cruised around looking for airfields to shoot up. The 262's fuel consumption wasn't great, it could fly for a while, outperform most other aircraft for a while... and then had to head back to base where it was at its weakest, and hope that it didn't fall prey to a patrolling "Jabo" as it tried to land...

The Germans tried to keep a screen of FW-190s over the field where Me-262s operated to protect them during takeoff and landing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Robert Naumann said:

The Germans tried to keep a screen of FW-190s over the field where Me-262s operated to protect them during takeoff and landing.

But at a time when the whole Reich was struggling to produce enough fuel? And bear in mind that by THAT late stage in the war, excellent though the FW 190 was... the planes that they were facing were at least as good - and probably flown by more experienced pilots,  The 262's were getting the best pilots... the rest of the Luftwaffe was being whittled down to nothing on a daily basis: each time you take on the bomber-stream and its escorts... you lose some more pilots.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FW-190D-9 was no doubt the best prop plane they had and probably if/when flown by experienced pilots were at least the equal of anything the Allies had. Just too few of them and not enough experienced pilots left in the Luftwaffe.  This was the model primarily used over the airfields to try to protect the ME-262s. There was also a TA-152 derivative of the 190, but again, too little too late. More of the Germans expending energy and resources on technology and not numbers, An exception being there were about 35,000 Bf-109s of all versions built, but it was an outdated design by '44.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were many factors that led to Germany's lose in WWII.

There was the lack of man power to fight a 3 front war, a lack of critical resources, the timing of Hitler's invasion of Russia and the lack of a strong logistical base.

The last being the deciding and most important reason for Germany losing the war. 

By logistics I mean both the ability their to supply the troops with very thing they needed to be a effective fighting force from food, clothing, weapons and ammunition to spare parts and fuel.

They also lacked the means to effectively move there supplies to to troops.

It must be remembered that German weapons and armor had little to no interchangeable part between the different types of armor so they needed to manufacture and transport thousands of different parts in order for their units to keep fighting.

Another critical factor in their logistical problem was that the German army was not fully Mobil or mechanized. Many of their units relied on horses to move their equipment and supplies and this added a additional logistical burden in the need to supply fodder and other supplies for the horses thus taking away from the capacity to provide the needed supplies for the troops .

The third factor in the logistical puzzle was the German rail system. The rail system was very effective for the first three and a half of the war until the allies started to destroy rail lines, bridges and rail cars at a rate that they could not be repaired or replaced fast enough thus rendering the German logistical system ineffective and thus in turn greatly hampered the armies ability to fight.

Others have said that the use of rail cars to move the millions of Jews and others to concentration camps was the cause for the German logistical problems but this as only a very small part of the total ligistical problems the Germans faced and could not over come.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to say the Nazis didn’t lose WWII – They were choked. And they came in as a very impressive number 2.
Jokes aside. If you compare the basics, human resources, and industrial capacity of the Allies with that of the Axis powers, the outcome couldn’t be any different. In a conventional war, that is.
Hitler’s many “Wunderwaffe” are often ridiculed, and when it comes to oversized, but otherwise conventional weapons, I agree. On the other hand, some of the ideas could have turned the tides.
Hitler’s racism and impatience were important factors on the personal level.
Anti-Semitisms caused a brain drainage of physicists with Jewish heritage and hindered the development of a nuclear weapon and with just a little more time Werner von Braun would have been able to deliver such warheads.
But, but, but… Without Hitler, World War II probably would not have taken place.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I AGREE. GERMANY COULD HAVE BEEN A POWERFUL NATION MUCH AS IT IS TODAY BY PURSUING A PEACEFUL COURSE. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SCOTT said:

I AGREE. GERMANY COULD HAVE BEEN A POWERFUL NATION MUCH AS IT IS TODAY BY PURSUING A PEACEFUL COURSE. 

 

2 hours ago, SCOTT said:

I AGREE. GERMANY COULD HAVE BEEN A POWERFUL NATION MUCH AS IT IS TODAY BY PURSUING A PEACEFUL COURSE. 

Which of course leads to the proviso "If Russia had allowed it." Post WW2, in the panic to include Germany in the newly formed NATO alliance, it was necessary to re-write quite a lot of German history. Everything became the Nazi's fault. That Germany had built its first death camp (in its South African protectorate) when Hitler was just eight years old makes "it was all the Nazi's fault" somewhat absurd. Nazism merely continued standard doctrines from the old Imperial Germany, Who bombed civilians in London during WW1? Who invaded neutral countries during WW1? Who was the first to use poisoned gas? Hard to blame such behaviour on a man who at the time was a mere corporal in the army. Clearly, these were NOT very nice people.

Inter wars, during the Weimar republic, when Germany was spilt into two by a thin strip of land declared to be part of Poland, Ostpreuss (East Prussia) was at an economic disadvantage, being cut off from the rest of the country. A scheme was established to subsidise the costs of production in East Prussia called "OstHilfe". And it appears that the Democracy-supporting parties in the Weimar Republic were embezzling money from the scheme hand-over-fist.Politically, the country was divided three ways; Democrats, Communists and Fascists. The Democrats for the most part looked like crooks, the Communists were dancing to Moscow's tune. No wonder Germany fought a brief, but vicious civil war after the conclusion of WW1. The Navy sided with the Reds, the Army sided with the Right. The right won... the democrats claimed the victory. But large areas of the country - notably Berlin and Hamburg - remained sympathetic to the Communist cause, Right wing support was strongest in the South of the country.

Given Stalin's behaviour during his years as Soviet leader, I suspect that a "peaceful Germany" would have been just TOO tempting a target. Remember that Stalin is thought to have ordered the murder of very many more people than Hitler ever did.(although there's a new book which disputes these figures. Even if Stalin did kill "only" 10,000.000 people, as opposed to Hitler's 11,000,000, in a "Peaceful" Germany, most of Hitler's numbers would have lived... but not Stalin's.)

 

  • Like 1

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

×