New Poll!: Where Germany lost the war.

The fighting in Russia meant a protracted conflict which Germany could not sustain - that laid the seeds of defeat.

In terms of there not being a Russian front and all German resources in the West; don't forget the Western Desert and Italy. Both these theatres would have also tied up German manpower and resources.

Indeed, the poor old D Day Dodgers fighting in Italy in 1943-45 are often forgotten in having tied up such resources to allow D Day to take place.

An interesting poll, though.

 

i think the main reason for their falure was thet the german army, being so full of themselves did not even reflect on the Russian winter just as did napoleon did not. This was the main reason for the falure of the german war machine in the east. if it was always summer then the german wermacht would have stormed to moscow as they were doing in the begining of the campaign.

For the matter of tacking malta the germans would not have then made the mederteraian there own personal lake because there was the "small" task of the Royal Navy. Plus the Americans would have eventually invade the continent through morroco to the south, thus applying more contention for the air and increasing pressurefor all of the german armed forces in the theatre.

 

None of the above...

Germany lost the war in 1938-1939 when plans for a war economy were NOT made. All of the above- the push on Moscow, the Battle of Britian... heck, even Crete- all of these german failures can be traced directly to logistics and resources.
Barbarossa/Moscow- we have discussed this on other threads. Not enough supplies, not enough equipment...
Battle of Britian... logistics made the entire possibility of a cross-channel invasion far-fetched, so although the RAF could have (potentially) been defeated, the germans probably would not have been able to take England.
Crete- For one thing, more air transports would have allowed for more paratroops being landed. Also, the massive losses in JU88s (?correct plane?) more or less ensured that Hitler would allow few if any more paratroop actions.
Battle of the Bulge- case in point here, some of the most significant german objectives were allied FUEL DUMPS they needed to capture.
and so on...

Hindsight is of course 20/20 here. The germans would have needed to secure many new resources as early as 1937, and put their armaments industries and related wartime industries into high gear. The war rationing which did not begin until 1943 would have had to have been implemented also as early as 1937-1938.
The problem here was that the germans looked at their victories in France and Poland and (logically!) thought that they had no real worries. Up until the BoB, most all the enemies the germans faced caved without a serious fight. Thus, there was no pressing evidenc to suggest a war economy was necessary.
Again, hindsight is 20/20.

I guess most if not all of these resource and logistical problems could have been avoided by NOT invading Russia at all... so germany lost the war due to inherent logistical problems combined with the decision to attack russia.

my 2 cents worth...

 

CrazyD is right. Hitler wasn't planning for a general war to start in 1939, but in 1943. He was only expecting to fight Poland on her own in 1939. Even after the Allies declared war he refused to put the German economy on a full war footing. After the defeat of France, he got victory disease, and the belief that his outnumbered and under-equipped army could win him quick, overwhelming victories cheaply.

Barbarossa would have been successful had Hitler and OKW taken the Soviets seriously and prepared properly for an extended campaign.

The German economy didn't reach its full potential until 1944 (when despite heavy Allied bombing it turned out a seriously impressive amount of weaponry) while the British reached theirs in 1941, the Russians in 1942, and the Americans in 1943.

 

I disagree! If Germany had captured Moscow, and knocked out Russia within 6 months, then they would not have needed all the supplies, and logistics that you speak of!

Blitzkrieg! That is what the German army was built for! Quick, short wars. It was not built for a long battle of attrition! Up until Moscow, it had been successful in every country they invaded! That is what I stated earlier.

Moscow was the key, and its' failure sewed the seeds of Germanys' defeat! The only reason that Germany lasted as long as they did, was due to a basic superiority in leadership, infantry tactics, and small arms (machine guns, and mortars).

Matt

 

Matt, as the real events have shown, German logistical means weren't sufficient to "blitz" Moscow within the first 6 months...not with the Red Army fighing as she did.

Bad logistics and lack of supply (fuel, rubber, trucks and spare parts) were top showstoppers already in 1941, not just in the 1942, 1943, 1944 attrition.

Cheers,

 

I wonder about that Otto...The major factor in both was control of the air. Germany didn't have it after the BoB. I think their groundforces would have dealt with the british forces witout much problems if they invaded. Churchill himslef said it; 'Never have so many owe dso much to so few'. If the RAF boys lost the battle in the air, the ground war would have been a formality, in my few. Not without due casualties for the Germans of course. Fighting would have been fierce.

Normandy; I really wonder if the allies would have held out those months in the bridgeheads if the Allied Air Forces didn't destroy so many panzers and curtailed German movement and mobility. If the Germans would have the air cover the Aliies had, Normandy would have beena German victory...

BTW I WANT MY DUTCH FLAG BACK!

 

Indeed, those 400 000 men or more in Dunkirk, with them as POW´s Churchill´s attitude might have been ...different. Something Germans should not have lost back then.

As well I agree that the Germans probably would have been victorious on the island ( UK ) but to get there first...that´s the problem. No control of the skies...the channel and its currents...Royal navy...lots of stuff that could crush the campaign and humiliate the German army.And the British did at one point bomb the invasion fleet of Germans, just don´t remember now how much damage they caused ( gotta check it out later on ).

 

You miss the point- germany did not have the logistical capability to take Moscow! Blitzkreig had been successful before Russia... against Poland, for one. Poland- poorly equipped, poorly trained army. Very little modern equipment. And most of all- Poland is a small country- the germans did not have to go 600 miles. Again in France- as we all know, the French hardly even put up a fight. So blitzkreig succeeded easily.
However, Britian does make a good example here... The germans could not blitz england for obvious reasons. And look what happened- as soon as the quick blitz was not an option, the german army ran into problems. The Luftwaffe alone could not use blitz tactics (obviously), and hence the Brits were able to hold out.
Thus, previous examples cannot be compared to russia. Simply the amount of space involved made blitz impossible. Not needing logistics??? Every modern army has to take this into account.

Explain? How would an army suddenly not need supplies? So the soldiers no longer need food? Or ammunition? The tanks and planes no longer need fuel?
So if the germans had taken Moscow, would the russian army have just vanished? No need for an occupation force?

 

Well I did vote Barborossa...but frankly I agree with crazy somewhat, it does go back to the prewar years. German Armed forces were equipped for short "Blitzkrieg" wars, they did not even develop a long range bomber. I've often wondering if they had this capability, could they have reached out east of the Urals and destroyed Russia's industrial output? Thus complimenting the ground war?

But the reality is they unleashed a war on Russia that logistically they were not prepared to bring to an end...yes they could have won, hindsight is 20/20...but they launched it with the preconcieved notion it would be over in 6 weeks, simply because there logistics officers told them it would HAVE to be. They wargamed it several times, but in the end they were counting on Russia to buckle early, that was the showstopper.

Good point on Dunkerque though, maybe things would have been different with a secure western flank!

 

In the Battle for Berlin February through May of 1945...........

think about it for a moment !

E

 

Crazy brought here the most important point in here and I do agree with him. However, if Hitler doesn't invade Russia then the German industry in 1941 was, I think, enough to win the war (exclusively the war in the West). The U-boat programme could have been very rapidly give full steam and defeat Britain and take a base for the US.

But taking on account that a war in the East must have happened then Crazy is completely right. The war in the East had to be won by conquering Moscow in October 1941. Taking Moscow required a full war economy since 1938. And if the war in the East was won, the war was won.

So, by not turning the industry to full steam in 1938-1939, Germany did not have the logistical nor the tactical (therefore the strategical) power to take Moscow before November 1941, so the war in the East and the whole war could not have been won. If we add that Moscow was not taken in 1941 with tremedous losses and that the next year an idiotic enormous campaign was launched against two objectives far beyond the capabilities of the Wehrmacht in 1941 (let's not talk about the Wehrmacht in 1942) the obvious result were strategical defeats in early 1943. There, the war was completely lost. At this point the war could not be won by any mean, in any way.

 

I voted defeat at Moscow,because it was concrete defeat of Wermacht that practicaly sealed their desteny.One could also say Barbarosa was the cause in the first place,but teoreticaly they could have won yet,or could they?Let's suppose they take Moscow and Urals and Soviet industry,'only' let's say 30 000 000 people in Sibiria continue struggle.However within several years there would be tens of millions of russian partisans on occupied areas inflicting several hundred of thousand german casulties on every couple of million soviet casulties.Eventually they would worn out german strength in manpower and will for endless diing,hold vast,VAST areas liberated start building industry again recruit more man and crush the Third Reich.And no,they wouldn't stop content with liberation of their own land,nor would some 30-50 000 000 casulties so far stop them..They would crush the nazi empire..all who know something about russian people know what I'm talking about.But then revenge would be horrible and deadly,and Germans would probably cease to exist..

 

Zhadov, I think your estimate is a little too optimistic. If the Russians took 10 years to liberate their occupied territory there would be no Russians left for them to liberate, I fear. It would have to happen sooner (probably would) or not at all in the scale you suggest.

 

Without even getting into the specific numbers for partisans and occupation forces, I think Zhadov's point is right on the money. Again, we have to consider wether or not the germans even had the potential to beat the russians in barbarossa. And in addition to material logistics, Zhadov points at one of the many manpower logistics issues the germans had. As they advanced, the germans could not mop up all the Soviet fighters and partisans. This created a catch-22... If the germans ignored the partisans and "stranded" russian soldiers, the russians could (and did!) easily wreak havoc on german supply lines and communication. BUT- the flipside is just as problematic. If the germans had deployed enough troops to defeat (or at least control) the russian partisans and stragglers, they would have had no troops left to continue their advance! The sheer size of russia made it relatively easy for groups of soldiers or partisans to hide or to escape easily after attacks.
So becuase of their over-stretched advances and weak supply lines, the partisan/resistance problem was one which the german army did not have the ability to address, even had they attempted to.