29 of the Reich's ex-leaders explain why they lost the war

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
...

The Japanese didnt have to fight the Soviets, at least until the tide turned in their favor, all they needed to do was keep a presence and not make peace. It was in their interest too to see the Soviet Union crumble. Failure to secure the Far East would have a major effect on the Soviet war effort.

But Soviet Intelligence officer Richard Sorge was able to inform Stalin that Japan had no intention of invading the Soviet Far East, unless Moscow was captured by Germany and they had a 3-1 advantage over Soviet forces in the region. And as Japan re-assigned forces from Manchuria to China and then to South East Asia, such an advantage was never going to come. Having reported very closely the planned date of Barbarossa (though dismissed at the time by Stalin) his reports that Japan would not invade were believed and allowed a good estimate of what forces could be transferred to the Battle of Moscow, without leading to an invasion opening a second front.

Plus it was winter. I don't believe that the Kwantung Army would have started an offensive into Siberia at that time of year (Nov/Dec 1941), if they had judged that the Soviet forces facing them were weak. And Japan was by then committed to invade South East Asia and go to war with US and UK. Once Pearl Harbour happened then Stalin knew with some certainty there would be no stab in the back from Japan, and that the amount of support from US would increase.

It's interesting to note that the Soviet Japan Non-Aggression Pact was signed publicly a few months before Barbarossa. The Japanese Foreign Minister visited Moscow openly, and the Pact was signed in front of the diplomatic corps. This was not some secret deal like the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact. Yet Hitler still went ahead. The leadership believed that they only had to "kick in the door and the whole rotten structure" would collapse. Hopelessly miscalculating the military capability of the Soviets and the willingness of the ordinary citizen to sacrifice themselves in a way they never experienced in Poland or France, and the seemingly unlimited resources of men and material (backed by US lend lease). The loss of the whole Sixth Army at Stalingrad was something which Germany could never afford, and most military people believed that defeat meant they would lose the war. The Soviets could, and did, lose many army sized forces and still fight on, and in December 1941 launch a counter offensive. And throw away huge numbers of troops a year later in defending Stalingrad while simultaneously building up the forces needed to encircle the Germans.

The fact is that no amount of theorising about what Germany could have done to gain victory is needed. The decision was made by a madman who believed it was his historical destiny to destroy Bolshevism, and that as a so-called "inferior race" Slavs were not capable of building tanks and planes that could match their own, never mind have the engineering resources to build them in huge numbers. At no point did any German planning take any account of the industrial capacity of the Soviets, and they clearly didn't believe it mattered one way or the other whether Japan invaded, nor whether Japan's actions brought US into the war.
 
As always with the Reich Command at the end of the war, they seem oblivious to the complete loss of the war in the East which can be argued as early as the winter of 1942/1943 (Case Blau & Stalingrad). Sure, if all that man power was not tied down manning AA battery guns or garrison duty in a number of countries (France, Norway, Italy, North Africa, Balkans, Baltics, etc) the Wehrmacht would have found more men to send into the Soviet meat grinder which was already around 60-70% of the total military engaged in the East, i.e. significant amounts of man, material, and resources already. So what they're really discussing is a sort of "what-if" they did not have to tie down around 40% of the military and send that Eastward. What is most revealing is the constant belief if they did X, nation Y would have surrendered. This, of course, led to the failure of Barbarossa where the Soviet State did not collapse and instead continued to fight to the bitter end with wave after wave of offensive, counter-offensives, and ultimately large scale operations that would wipe out each of the army groups.
 
Whatever you having please share. There is so many things wrong with that statement i dont know where to begin. Germany lost the war the moment they invaded Poland only they didnt know it yet. The sheer overwhelming deficit the Axis had in Manpower, Industry and resources doomed them from the very start. Then add to that the amount of resources that the Axis used to maintain its empires and it was all over.

The simple fact that half of the british cabinet wanted peace after the fall of France, and that if Churchill had not put all his wheight against it it would have happened (Churchill even wanted London to be bombed to radicalize british public opinion) invalidate your point. There were so many points that could have turned the tide one way or the other after German invasion of Poland.
 
I think they were asked why they lost the war in the WEST. Fairly typical of western propaganda to change this to why Germany lost the war. Some of the comments are even talking about 1944, the Germans had lost to the Soviets by the end of 1942 after that the eastern front was basically a slow retreat.
1943 - Kursk was the turning point. That was the last time Germany was able to launch a major offensive.

But you're right. Reading through the answers on that page, there are multiple references to 1944 and to the Allied invasion. By that time Germany had already lost the war.

One of the most reasonable sentences in this thread. Nobody can't really believe in German victory because "it could have happen this way" final victory was never achievable. And yet there are still people who believe Germany could have won the war, if that army moved there or this division arrived sonner. Displecement of resources, manpower and industrial infrastructure simply shows a one-sided picture. In every singly thing.
I disagree.

Three things happened that ensured Germany's defeat:
- 1940: Britain refused to make peace.
- 1941/1942: Invasion of the USSR, combined with failure to capture Moscow.
- 1941: All-out war with the US.
None of these three things were inevitable.

- In 1940, political leadership in Britain was a toss-up between Churchill and Halifax. Halifax would have made peace with Hitler.
- In 1941, Barbarossa started late, because of the war in Greece. In addition, Hitler changed the direction of the offensive several times. The USSR came close to losing. And if you compare the economic output of Germany + occupied Europe vs Britain + Commonwealth + unoccupied USSR, the balance was close.
 
@Cpt Crash
@Smitzer

The mistake in this logic is that you assume every country is going to fight to the death. It is perfectly plausible that Germany could have defeated Russia (Churchill only gave them 6 months at one point). It would then be realistic for Britain to negotiate a truce with Germany particularly if the USA had yet to join the war, there were some in Britain that supported a negotiated peace anyway. Churchill would have to be removed but prior to El Alamein he wasn't very popular.

Of course its all hypothetical but I certainly don't agree that German defeat was inevitable.

1941 campaign is the only "plausible" example used on how the Germans could have won. Well it still changes nothing, even if Germans get some sort of truce in late 1941 after taking Mosow in a great victory without serious resistance, it would not change the outcame. And thinking that Soviets would just give entire European part of Russia and Caucasus to Germany when they only had land west from Moscow, is out of this world. I can envision some resource agreement and promises on the soviet side but thats it.

-Germans would be still blocked in Russia and forced to maintain a huge force there. Resources would be a problem no matter what and their manpower would be still strained all over Europe. I can only imagine "fight to the dead" in this scenario where it would be a no brainer that Germany is threat NO.1

-I heard a lot of this talk that rest of the world would be too scared to gang up on Germany, if they won peace in the East as they did in reality and nobody would dare to oppose them. The window for Britain surrender and USA entering the war was very small and after all there was no reason for Japan not to declare war on USA and USA declaring war on Germany was simply a "bad politics" in eyes of Roosevelt but he would do it no matter what.

Then it would be again a matter of time before German defeat.
 
@Smitzer:
I remain unconvinced that Roosevelt would have been able to drag America into the war if Hitler hadn't done him the favor of doing it for him.
There are lots of German Americans, there was still a lot of good will and Americans did not like Jews very much either.
And fighting Germany just to save Britains ass (who only had themselves to blame) or secure repayment of British and French debt would be unlikely.

I also doubt the rest of the world ganging up on germany 'just because'.


The difficulty here is to tell what constitutes 'German defeat'.
Because sooner or later there would have had to be changes in politics if the occupied countries were to be kept.
Some kind of Holy German empire of European Nation.
So what is German defeat?
 
I disagree.

Three things happened that ensured Germany's defeat:
- 1940: Britain refused to make peace.
- 1941/1942: Invasion of the USSR, combined with failure to capture Moscow.
- 1941: All-out war with the US.
None of these three things were inevitable.

- In 1940, political leadership in Britain was a toss-up between Churchill and Halifax. Halifax would have made peace with Hitler.
- In 1941, Barbarossa started late, because of the war in Greece. In addition, Hitler changed the direction of the offensive several times. The USSR came close to losing. And if you compare the economic output of Germany + occupied Europe vs Britain + Commonwealth + unoccupied USSR, the balance was close.

I can agree with Britain and Churchill not being secure in 1940/41 and most of us knows what kind of mistakes were made during Barbarossa and what could have happen differently for Germans.

But there is nothing preventing USA-Germany war and the industrial output is very grimm for Germany in this scenario. And even pre-usa war the output as you lined up might be close in pure industrial assets but resource wise Germany is simply on the bad side. On the manpower basis is even worse.
 
But there is nothing preventing USA-Germany war and the industrial output is very grimm for Germany in this scenario. And even pre-usa war the output as you lined up might be close in pure industrial assets but resource wise Germany is simply on the bad side. On the manpower basis is even worse.

Why would there be a German-American war?
 
One of the most reasonable sentences in this thread. Nobody can't really believe in German victory because "it could have happen this way" final victory was never achievable. And yet there are still people who believe Germany could have won the war, if that army moved there or this division arrived sonner. Displecement of resources, manpower and industrial infrastructure simply shows a one-sided picture. In every singly thing.

No. germany didnt lost the war the day it started. Lets recall, who was fighting Germany almost from the very begining? poland, France and the BRithish Empire. Two of them were out of the game after some months, and the last one trembling. So no, Germany didnt lost the war in Sept. of 1939. Germany lost a good part of the war in June 1941, and the other part in Dec 1941. By Germanys own decisions (if you recall it was Germany that declaredwar on the usa, not the contrary. I doubt Roosevelt could have declared war on Germany if he hadnt had a good reason, and he didnt have that good reason).
 
Last edited:
The fact is that no amount of theorising about what Germany could have done to gain victory is needed. The decision was made by a madman who believed it was his historical destiny to destroy Bolshevism, and that as a so-called "inferior race" Slavs were not capable of building tanks and planes that could match their own, never mind have the engineering resources to build them in huge numbers. At no point did any German planning take any account of the industrial capacity of the Soviets, and they clearly didn't believe it mattered one way or the other whether Japan invaded, nor whether Japan's actions brought US into the war.

the Germans were perfectly aware of the soviet build-up of their armies. German officers were allowed to visit massive planes factories at the time of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The fact is that nobody outside soviet command knew the extent of this armaments effort. Hitler knew that Barbarossa was a gamble.
 
I would say that without the western front German victory in the east would have been not only possible but probable.

The Germans lost air superiority in the east around 1943. This was because 80% of their fighters were going west. Without this they would have had numerical parity and quality superiority in the east and had air superiority until the end of the war.

Without the western front the Germans dont need to have a million and a half men in the kreigsmarine. So there's a million men.
In the same vien:
The Axis dont lose 900k in North Africa and another 150k in Sicily.
There isn't 1.5 million in Northern France and 300k each in Southern France and Norway. Let's be conservative and say another million.
The Italians dont surrender. Let's suppose the Italians pony up half a million troops in 1945, a very small contribution given their population. There's also half a million German troops that aren't lost in Italy or tied up at the end of the war.
On top of that we have the strategic bombing which tied up a lot of resources.

The Soviets were tapped out and about to have a famine in 1946, partly because they had drained their rural population. Another four million Axis troops and Axis air superiority was more then they could have overwhelmed. As the war grows on it is Russian, not German, strength that is exhausted and if things settle into a stalemate it is a stalemate very far from Germany and with much of Russia occupied.
 
I would say that without the western front German victory in the east would have been not only possible but probable.

The Germans lost air superiority in the east around 1943. This was because 80% of their fighters were going west. Without this they would have had numerical parity and quality superiority in the east and had air superiority until the end of the war.

Without the western front the Germans dont need to have a million and a half men in the kreigsmarine. So there's a million men.
In the same vien:
The Axis dont lose 900k in North Africa and another 150k in Sicily.
There isn't 1.5 million in Northern France and 300k each in Southern France and Norway. Let's be conservative and say another million.
The Italians dont surrender. Let's suppose the Italians pony up half a million troops in 1945, a very small contribution given their population. There's also half a million German troops that aren't lost in Italy or tied up at the end of the war.
On top of that we have the strategic bombing which tied up a lot of resources.

The Soviets were tapped out and about to have a famine in 1946, partly because they had drained their rural population. Another four million Axis troops and Axis air superiority was more then they could have overwhelmed. As the war grows on it is Russian, not German, strength that is exhausted and if things settle into a stalemate it is a stalemate very far from Germany and with much of Russia occupied.

Err. No, Germany lost air superiorityin 1943 because most of their fighters were going to protect the Homeland, not the West. In fact by mid/late 1943 the amount of german fighter planes in the west was ridiculous.

Ps. Your argumentshave a point but one important flaw: it was the East the front that came first, not the contrary. By 1943, which was the date when the allies came in force to West Europe/North Africa, the East front was already decided.
 
I can agree with Britain and Churchill not being secure in 1940/41 and most of us knows what kind of mistakes were made during Barbarossa and what could have happen differently for Germans.

But there is nothing preventing USA-Germany war and the industrial output is very grimm for Germany in this scenario. And even pre-usa war the output as you lined up might be close in pure industrial assets but resource wise Germany is simply on the bad side. On the manpower basis is even worse.

You forget an important fact : the human factor. there is no way the US would have sent million of soldiers fight on a dangerous front against an enemy who was not threatening the homeland.

It is nice and well to be able to build hundred of thousand of tanks and planes and landing crafts. Finding people ready to die using them is an entirely different matter. (Italy anyone ?)
 
Err. No, Germany lost air superiorityin 1943 because most of their fighters were going to protect the Homeland, not the West. In fact by mid/late 1943 the amount of german fighter planes in the west was ridiculous.

They were going to protect Germany from the western allies. That's what I meant.

You forget an important fact : the human factor. there is no way the US would have sent million of soldiers fight on a dangerous front against an enemy who was not threatening the homeland.

World War One.
 
@Smitzer:
I remain unconvinced that Roosevelt would have been able to drag America into the war if Hitler hadn't done him the favor of doing it for him.
There are lots of German Americans, there was still a lot of good will and Americans did not like Jews very much either.
And fighting Germany just to save Britains ass (who only had themselves to blame) or secure repayment of British and French debt would be unlikely.

I also doubt the rest of the world ganging up on germany 'just because'.


The difficulty here is to tell what constitutes 'German defeat'.
Because sooner or later there would have had to be changes in politics if the occupied countries were to be kept.
Some kind of Holy German empire of European Nation.
So what is German defeat?

There is way to many "what ifs" in these discussions as it should be since once you get on road with alternative history possibilities are endless.

But I can still imagine Pacific war and Hitler´s ego getting to big to declare war on USA then it´s simply a time game and other states jumping the train. But even without it, it was(it is) USA policy that it must have potential Allies and security on both USA coastlines. Geo-politicaly speaking it´s a threat No.1 having something as Germany getting so much power in Europe.

It would have to be some very unlikely turn of events that USA would choose to ignore such threat gaining upper hand in Europe and therefore in Atlantic Ocean in time so it could endanger U.S itself. Now selling this to the public with a proper spin in the media would not be hard: "damn those pesky Europeans this is our country on the line now " sort of thing.

As for Germany in Europe:
Nevetherless German politics would have to change in Europe if they ever wanted to actually rule it. Real Germany (Hitler and friends) politics in Europe was so self-destructive that people turned on them a lot and Europe´s potential was severely reduced as such. Only way how the German empire coud have been prolonged is having Hitler removed and make some sort of union in Europe with Germany as the overseer + getting resources from a subjugated SU and Commonwealth. I think there were a few books on this subject.
 
Last edited:
US casualties were negligible.

US casualties in WWI were 30% of US casualties in WWII and 40% on a per capita basis. If WWI was neglible for the US then WWII was pretty light too.

And you said the US wouldn't send men to die on a dangerous front far from their borders, not that WWI ended soon after the Americans joined.
 
Geo-politicaly speaking it´s a threat No.1 having something as Germany getting so much power in Europe.
.

No. It is completely unrealistic to think that Germany could have threatened the US across the Atlantic Ocean (What for ?), at least this threat isn't worth millions of death. The germans had not the navy nor the air force, and the US would have had the A-bomb anyway.
 
Send MILLIONS of men, the kind of toll that would be needed to fight Germany (after defeating SU).

The US planned for exactly that contingency at first. The original plan was to have 1 American/Commonwealth soldier in Europe for every Axis soldier. Considering the larger populations for the Allies that was a reasonable goal. The Soviets won Kursk soon after the US entered the war and the Allies changed their plans to the US keeping more men in industry and sending more to the Pacific.