The main reason of why Nazis lost the War???

Aside from the excellent and concise commentary by T.A. Gardner, there were several very important reasons for the German failure to win the war: scarce raw materials, little or no preparation for long-term war, a childish geopolitical strategy and a sick philosophy based on hate. The added burden of gross mismanagement and contradictions in production policies made a concerted effort nearly impossible.
The early success was mainly due to lack of will to fight of the French and the stubborn refusal of Stalin to recognize the initial assaults as an all out invasion from Germany. The appalling notion that England would agree to a negotiated peace after the invasion of France and the declaration of war against the US were complete absurdities and a good example of how poor Hitler's geopolitical and historical knowledge was. The fragmentation of power led to a dissociated structure of the State, preventing decision making on any other level but the top one, and the top one was sick, ignorant, prejudiced and arrogant...a great combination for the disaster that soon would follow.
The lack of attention to the Atlantic War, which could have changed the situation dramatically by cutting off supplies from the US and the British Empire to England is just one of the many strategic mistakes made by an incompetent and selfish leader. The invasion of Russia was another one, only bigger.

Regards

 

Exacly T.A.! Thats what I was getting at. To blame Hitler alone is not correct. There were way more people involved in many areas that effected the war effort of Germany.

 

And who created that overall environment with so many symptoms of the 'failed state'?
Which one person, by force of will, cronyism, violence and hubris allowed all of those factors to coalesce?

Hitler.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Was in Leicester again today Von Poop....whats the Bruxelles cafe like? Any idea?

The face does get to you. We're allowed to get p'd off with even the thought of the guy and his henchmen. As to why the Nazis lost the war...Because the allies won thanks to the allied vets one and all.

Bless em all.

 

IMHO Germany lost the war because the Nazi leradership was totally out of touch with reality, they got the upper hand in France (with a hand from some rather poor allied commanders and planning), and may have won against Britain had they been able to develop a real grand strategy, Germany had a big advantage in population and a smaller one in industrial capacity vs the UK alone and may have been a match even for the full Commonwealth if it had developed a strategy aimed at exploiting it's weaknesses. But this was completely beyond the capability of the amateurs that ruled it, so they chose instead to declare war on the USSR and the US .

 

That one was kind of floating around as my most likely 'reason number 2'.
Because some good people stood up and said "no more" is as sensible an answer as any.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

While I generally agree with the gist of your comments, I cannot concur with the statement about the "Atlantic War".

There is no conclusive evidence that Germany could ever have "cut off" supplies to England from the US and Canada. It should be noted that 98% of all vessels in convoys to England arrived at their destination, the loss of 2% of the cargoes would never have been enough to seriously effect England's war effort.

Germany never had enough U-boats (or surface raiders or maritime attack aircraft) to inflict great loss on the Atlantic supply convoys. Of course, it could be argued that, had Donitz been heeded earlier, and Plan Z aborted sooner, there would have been large numbers of U-boats in service at the beginning of the European war. However, this assumes that Germany would have been left alone to commission large numbers of U-boats without some reaction from the Allies. This is highly unlikely, given that both the US and the UK were well aware of German naval developments in the mid-to late 1930's, and almost certainly would have countered a buildup of German submarines with large escort construction programs and other technological ASW projects, thus negating, or at least offsetting any supposed advantages to the German U-boat arm.

 

Well it's my contention Nazism was more a religion than a formal political organisation and having recently bought a copy of Mein Kampf and read snippets of that, I find it plainly obvious their messiah was a complete nutjob. And I mean that raving lunatic at work you have to talk yourself into not shoving off a roofbeam (hehe, somebody actually did that to Hitler once on a building site, according to his memoirs).

He was an idiot, he told everybody precisely what he was going to do and then he did it. The people who found themselves represented by him were the psychopaths, too weakly to ordinarily become very successful bullies but strengthened by the idea numbers and street gangs could rule the nation with violence and fear, cloaked in a pathetic mimicry of genuine working class struggles.

I don't go in for this excuse of legislative powers, at least for the reinstated military aristocracy and high command. I note however for anyone else obviously resistance seemed more than futile, it was plainly suicidal by the time the "unremarkable little man" managed to weasel his Party into power. Generals and public officials tried as early as 1938 to sequester British support in removing the Nazis by international intervention if not any other manner. They advised them of his war plans. Later the same individuals were eventually involved in the Smolensk and July bomb plots. Most of their compatriots had already been inmates of Dauchau for some time, or simply murdered in the street.

And as for being any further removed from any powerbase, well I mean he began his office with a war on international and domestic terrorism (the initial premise for his emergency powers), which unsurprisingly was identified by quick investigation to be the product of Jewish extremists. Between the book burning and the totalitarian state, how do you argue? And I mean, by 1943 the People's court was beheading German students for treason. Who the hell would want to argue.

Yet still I find some things just totally odd. My grandmother defended him as Germany's saviour to her last breath. What exactly do I make of that?

 

For putting up a few fliers, no less.

 

Why Germany lost? They really should not have what with the incredible military force they had at hand. They lost because of a bone headed savagery that backfired on them and enraged the citizens of the world community. The terror and outright criminality came from the head of state. Probably the most egregious example of state sponsored criminality that exists. Der Furhrer was also a stategic dunce and once the initiative had passed he was out of his league.

 

Germany lost the war because...

1. Reich Economics is a rotten edifice. Gross inefficiencies everywhere to ensure German underproduction everywhere.

2. Hitler's follies and post-1940 France political incompetence.

3. Obviously, Russia. The Germans should have waited for a few years before the attack.

et,etc

 

Hi;
It's baffling that OKW missed the Soviet buildup on the Romainian wings at Stalingrad. For certain the Soviets were good at deception-"maskirovka"-but Somebody must have noticed Giorgi Zhukov was building forces for a counter attack as he had at Moscow. What kept OKW from seeing the obvious? Wishfull thinking? The writer Vasily Grossman pondered this very question as he studied the earthworks on the Wehrmacht's wings. Grossman speculated that the Germans supposed the main Soviet strength to be in the city when in fact Marshall Chuikov was defending the city with a relatively small force. Whatever-the Wehrmacht was taken by total surprise when the encirclement came.
JeffinMNUSA

 

General Chuikov at the time, commanding 62nd Army. He was made a MSU in the fifties only There was intelligence concerning Soviet forces facing the Stalingrad flanking armies, Romenians and Italians. Reinhard Gehlen describes his reports with his collated information being disregarded by the higher authorities.

 

ZA;
I recall reading in the Jones account how the Romainians were screaming bloody murder about developments on their front in the days before the offensive. It seems they were ignored. Perhaps OKW wrote it off as another Soviet ruse? Or maybe it was just not what they wanted to hear? What is also baffling is why a breakout was not authorized after the encirclement-perhaps the absolute dictator was thinking the Demyansk Pocket of 1941? The Red Army of 1943 was a whole different force... Demyansk Pocket: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article It's strange that the Allied propaganda efforts never pointed out Hitler's obvious shortcomings as a strategic commander-the barbarism he unleashed has been well documentated. The people around him said he was never the same after Stalingrad and well he should not have been-he had "made a muck of it."
JeffinMNUSA

 

Jeff, those were bad news totally contrary to what "they" expected, so were dismissed as fabrications. Victory was just around the corner. Gehlen had his maps swept out of the table.

 

Za;
Wishfull thinking as opposed to a hard eyed appreciation of fact? There's been many a leader guilty of that! Stalin's blunders were pretty unforgiveable also, but in the end he started listening to the professionals(like when it was looking like he might be paraded in a cage in Berlin?). Hitler came to micromanage the war some pretty disasterous results for the people he was professing to lead. Toward the end he was "In cloudcoocoo land" as General Heinirici said and ordering about divisions that no longer existed. So what was this historical figure's "major malfunction"? Volumes have been written about that... For certain he was no Napoleon Bonaparte though.
JeffinMNUSA
PS. I finally got around to thanking my father in law for doing his part in WWII. Us 50's brats were kind of overdosed on WWII lore growing up for a lot of years did not care to hear any more about it. The recent spate of interest is a healthy thing though-and people are getting around to revisiting this event of massive import. I guess I will be catching "Valkyrie" soon-there are literally thousands of WWII stories out there worthy of a Hollywood film.
http://books.google.com/books?id=88...&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

 

I strongly disagree and i believe Hitler was a well experienced general. The war was lost because of a couple things. If Italy hadn't invaded Greece then the Germans would not need to shore up the collapsing Italian front there. So the Germans can launch Operation Barbarossa on may 21 instead of June 22. Which would have well given enough time to conquer Moscow and Leningrad and accomplish half the territorial conquests conducted in the the second year. Which would possibly draining stalin of his oil reserves in the Caucasus mountains and put his army under siege because of food shortages. Stalin would have sued for peace and Soviet Union conquered and Hitler would have conquered England during operation Sea Lion. Also if Japan invaded the Soviet union at the time then the USSR would have a two front war and so they could not draw up troops from the far east and be sandwiched between the axis armies. the Ussr will be suing for terms and so once again germans can beat off the British. Also if war wasn't declared on U.s. then the Nazis would have all the time they need to starve Stalin of oil and subdue England. also if Rommel's Africa korps had encircled ritchie's Eight army then the Africa Korps will be able to link forces with those armies in russia and once again taking the oil rich Caucuses blah blah blah.Just one of those needed to happen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Why would Stalin sue for peace exactly? Strikes me that he would have kept fighting to the bitter end, regardless of cost.

How exactly? The chance of success for a seaborne landing in the UK were mighty slim at best.

Japan was rather occupied at the time, preparing for war with the US & Commonwealth

What terms do you suppose Hitler would offer to the USSR? Why would they sue for peace when the victor intends to annihilate the Soviet Union?

How exactly? Please describe how this would benefit the Axis in 1942, and how they would "subdue England" (but not the Scots or Welsh? )

Rommels army did in fact defeat Ritchie at Gazala, however they were hampered (as always) by supply problems.
What exactly do you expect Rommel to do differently at Gazala? (or first El Alamein? )

Hmm, well I really have no answer to that.

 

We've had similar conversations like this before...to my mind the two Biggest (but not only) reasons for Germany's loss:
1. Hitler - Russia
2. American Bombing raids...Goebells admitted that the US airforce dealt "unrecoverable blows" to German industry...something that seems totally lost in the debate...

 

The claim by Axis ascendent,that Barbarossa was delayed by the Italian attack on Greece,has been debunked,debunked ,etc,etc.
About the Caucasus oil:it never was captured by the Germans,but,due to destructions,the production fell to 50 %,but,this was not preventing the Soviets to arrive at Berlin .
About the claim of CAC about the importance of the US bombing raids :the following is from "Eagle in Flames (by Hootton):
Air Assault upon the Reich :bomber sorties in 1943:Bomber Command :47471 US 8th Air Force:10981.