Why Hitler lost the war.

Industrious1 · Jan 7, 2015

So i've been reading a few things around the web concerning hitlers defeat. now i want to see what you guys have to say about my points or even provide points that counter mine.

Now there's let's look at the mainstream views.

Option 1. This is probably the most wide spread belief amongst people who have an opinion on the subject, and that is that Germany was never going to have the capability to defeat Russia.

Option 2. Germany could not have won a 2 front war.

----

Option 1: This is untrue, it's very possible that Germany could have won and there's a few key reasons as to why this didn't happen in 1941.

1. Hitler was unwilling to push the population in to total war when he believed it unnecessary, Hitler failed to Fully Mobilize the economy for war until it was too late, in 1943. If you look at military production from 1942 until 1944 you will see for Germany there is a gigantic spike , in factGermany's production of most military goods almost trippled.
If this had been done at the outbreak of war, Many more troops could have beeen mobilized, much more supplies could be moved, as well as air superiority on both fronts (Maybe germany would have won the battle of britain too?)
anyway..
There would be many more panzers, more artillery, Potentially enough to capture leningrad, with that said , there could have been more reserves available to advance on moscow before the winter arrived. yep moscow could have potentially fallen in october or early november :/
So even if Hitler still even with this failed to take moscow in 41' he would of atleast had the reserves to defend from the counter attack, okay lets say he still had to retreat as a result of the winter offensive, Germany is still going to be massively out producing Russia, so when their summer offensive 'fall blau' begins they would have been far better stocked on weapons tanks etc for the advance on stalingrad, as i'm writing this im becoming more and more convinced that we actually got very lucky lol... If germany still even after all of that failed to take stalingrad, they would still have the production capabilities to continously renew offensives, maintaining the initiative until they either ran out of men or won.

option 2: Germany could not have won a 2 front war. this is completely untrue, you could just give the answer for option 1 , put it here, and wallah. lol.

So now lets look at Hitler's reluctance to mobilize fully.
I personally believe he didn't do it because he did not believe it was necessary, but why, why would you (considering the seriousness of what he was embarking on) not utilize every possible resource possible, to achieve victory, I think it's because of his belief that russia was rotting from the inside, his racial beliefs, his nazism..
My conclusion is that his failure to mobilize fully is a result of Hitlers belief that the russian's were subhuman, i've read before that Hitler lost because of his nazism, i agree without a shadow of a doubt that Germany lost the war due to the fact that the war was being run under a nazi ideology.

Opanashc · Jan 7, 2015

1. Germany had big trouble supplying its forces in Russia in 1941, due to destroyed infrastructure. It does not matter, if you can field twice as many guns, if you cannot keep the guns you already have supplied with ammo.
2. Such discussions on this forum are prohibited.

Industrious1 · Jan 7, 2015

I've read the rules and no where does it say cant discuss the topic of the outcome of the war

Opanashc · Jan 7, 2015

I was referring to your stated reasons of why Hitler didn't mobilize Germany fully.

Industrious1 · Jan 7, 2015

As for the supplies i believe that was only a problem when the rain came. A temporary problem

sunsterson · Jan 7, 2015

Industrious1 said:
As for the supplies i believe that was only a problem when the rain came. A temporary problem

I think it's because of his belief that russia was rotting from the inside, his racial beliefs, his nazism..
My conclusion is that his failure to mobilize fully is a result of Hitlers belief that the russian's were subhuman, i've read before that Hitler lost because of his nazism, i agree without a shadow of a doubt that Germany lost the war due to the fact that the war was being run under a nazi ideology.

lets see, discusses race and nazism. i'd suggest you edit it out or this thread will get closed pretty fast.

and the notion that the germans had supply problems because of rain isn't accurate. the german industry couldn't support such a huge army in the deep parts of russia late into the war.

if you want to discuss the war, i don't think this is the right sub forum either. but for all intents and purposes. keep the discussion to a strategic and tactical level instead of discussing political and motivation reasons.

sunsterson · Jan 7, 2015

I'll join in on the option 1 / 2 discussion.

Option one is accurate in my opinion. The Germans were so outnumbered by the allies militarily and industrially, there best hope was a favourable peace. They were never going to be able to defeat and occupy the Soviet Union.

Option two isn't actually the mainstream thought. It applies to world war one more then 2.

f1nalstand17 · Jan 7, 2015

Very good points. But I think you left out the most important aspect that the Nazi's failed to utilize since they were blinded by their ideology: appearing to the populations of the SU as liberators. Many, many people in the SU HATED communism and wanted to get rid of it. Had Hitler invaded as "liberators" and recruited the masses of minority's that wanted to join the cause to destroy communism instead of what he actually did, Germany undoubtedly would've won the war.

Opanashc · Jan 7, 2015

Just because they hated communism, does not mean they would have made effective force multipliers.

Kovax · Jan 7, 2015

It might not have been a huge help to the war effort, but it wouldn't have been the massive drag on it which it quickly turned into, once the populace realized that their situation under Hitler was even worse than under Stalin. It would potentially have made the supply issue a lot easier, too.

unmerged(715229) · Jan 7, 2015

Just compare the resources of the SU and Germany before and while at war.
Do the math. Then think about it again.

Take also into consideration that one can not supply troops farther than approx. 300 km from the last railway drop point with trucks. From there on the supply cost for your transports eat more fuel than the fuel your transporting!!

Check the german numbers for ammunition before Poland (Fall Weiss). They didnt even have enough ammunition if that war would last longer then 4 weeks.

Check the german army OOB for heavy artillery (above 15cm) there is almost none in comparision to SU.
"Every german has an iron cross, every russian soldier has a 20cm grenade launcher"

Check the german Luftwaffe for real long ranged bombers (a strategic airforce), its non existent.

And we havent even talked about other nations like US or GB.

The upscaled war effort from 1943 on was BTW Speers organisation talent and the fact that they had to move almost all of their critical factories to underground facilities like old mines. Obviously a measure to compensate for the total loss of airsuperiority above their own soil. (Bomber raids on ballbearingsplant in Schweinfurt!!)

In my book that war was lost from the first moment on.

f1nalstand17 · Jan 7, 2015

Opanashc said:
Just because they hated communism, does not mean they would have made effective force multipliers.

True, but what's more important is that the SU does not have the manpower as they did in OTL, as well as having less morale. In addition, valuable units that could be used as reserves or the front, aren't diverted to combating partisans.

Oof · Jan 7, 2015

The main reason the Germans lost the war is because of the Italian invasion of Greece and the need for the Germans to intervene. The original date of Barbarossa had to be postponed by about five weeks. Without this delay, the Germans would have suffered less from the Rasputitsa during the autumn, which gave the Russians time to partially recuperate and prepare, and they would have had most of the summer to beat the Soviets. It’s very likely that more troops would have been encircled and destroyed in that period and the offensive for Moscow wouldn’t have started in Arctic conditions!

The second reason is that Hitler kept shifting part of his armor forces between Leningrad and Moscow and as a result both offensives lacked the needed amount of armor to be successful.

The question remains though if beating the USSR would have won Germany the war anyway? A victory in Russia would not have meant that all Germans troops could be withdrawn to other theatres and the conquered territory would need a lot of troops to guard it. This would mean that a great deal of supplies, gasoline, etc, would still have to be sent to the East, which caused so many problems after 1941. In such a “what if” scenario the cost of liberating Europe might have been too high for the Allies and some kind of draw might have been reached. But there is still the airpower problem, which decimated Germany industry, and the A-bomb. I guess the war was lost, when German air attacks during the Battle of Britain shifted from airfields to cities. Though a lot of historians think Hitler was never serious about invading Britain.

And maybe very maybe, the war was already lost when France was beaten in the summer of 1940. The German Blitzkrieg was the start of American interventionism and the start of the downfall of isolationism! And in that respect any successful invasion of Britain would have only strengthened American interventionist policies as would have a Russian surrender in 1941.

So the answer to your question is no. I don’t think there was any way the Germans in the long run would have been able to win the war. The best they could hope for was a draw but even that is highly unlikely.

sunsterson · Jan 7, 2015

Oof said:
The main reason the Germans lost the war is because of the Italian invasion of Greece and the need for the Germans to intervene. The original date of Barbarossa had to be postponed by about five weeks. Without this delay, the Germans would have suffered less from the Rasputitsa during the autumn, which gave the Russians time to partially recuperate and prepare, and they would have had most of the summer to beat the Soviets. It’s very likely that more troops would have been encircled and destroyed in that period and the offensive for Moscow wouldn’t have started in Arctic conditions!

The second reason is that Hitler kept shifting part of his armor forces between Leningrad and Moscow and as a result both offensives lacked the needed amount of armor to be successful.

The question remains though if beating the USSR would have won Germany the war anyway? A victory in Russia would not have meant that all Germans troops could be withdrawn to other theatres and the conquered territory would need a lot of troops to guard it. This would mean that a great deal of supplies, gasoline, etc, would still have to be sent to the East, which caused so many problems after 1941. In such a “what if” scenario the cost of liberating Europe might have been too high for the Allies and some kind of draw might have been reached. But there is still the airpower problem, which decimated Germany industry, and the A-bomb. I guess the war was lost, when German air attacks during the Battle of Britain shifted from airfields to cities. Though a lot of historians think Hitler was never serious about invading Britain.

And maybe very maybe, the war was already lost when France was beaten in the summer of 1940. The German Blitzkrieg was the start of American interventionism and the start of the downfall of isolationism! And in that respect any successful invasion of Britain would have only strengthened American interventionist policies as would have a Russian surrender in 1941.

So the answer to your question is no. I don’t think there was any way the Germans in the long run would have been able to win the war. The best they could hope for was a draw but even that is highly unlikely.

I highly doubt you could argue successfully that the fall of france resulted in germany losing. USA was an important country. It wasn't the most important.

unmerged(156471) · Jan 7, 2015

its no surprise that as the war went on hitler trusted his generals less and less and stalin more and more to me thats the decisive factor all of the best generals got the sack at one time or another for tryingto do the right things

f1nalstand17 · Jan 7, 2015

Oof said:
The main reason the Germans lost the war is because of the Italian invasion of Greece and the need for the Germans to intervene. The original date of Barbarossa had to be postponed by about five weeks. Without this delay, the Germans would have suffered less from the Rasputitsa during the autumn, which gave the Russians time to partially recuperate and prepare, and they would have had most of the summer to beat the Soviets. It’s very likely that more troops would have been encircled and destroyed in that period and the offensive for Moscow wouldn’t have started in Arctic conditions!

The second reason is that Hitler kept shifting part of his armor forces between Leningrad and Moscow and as a result both offensives lacked the needed amount of armor to be successful.

The question remains though if beating the USSR would have won Germany the war anyway? A victory in Russia would not have meant that all Germans troops could be withdrawn to other theatres and the conquered territory would need a lot of troops to guard it. This would mean that a great deal of supplies, gasoline, etc, would still have to be sent to the East, which caused so many problems after 1941. In such a “what if” scenario the cost of liberating Europe might have been too high for the Allies and some kind of draw might have been reached. But there is still the airpower problem, which decimated Germany industry, and the A-bomb. I guess the war was lost, when German air attacks during the Battle of Britain shifted from airfields to cities. Though a lot of historians think Hitler was never serious about invading Britain.

And maybe very maybe, the war was already lost when France was beaten in the summer of 1940. The German Blitzkrieg was the start of American interventionism and the start of the downfall of isolationism! And in that respect any successful invasion of Britain would have only strengthened American interventionist policies as would have a Russian surrender in 1941.

So the answer to your question is no. I don’t think there was any way the Germans in the long run would have been able to win the war. The best they could hope for was a draw but even that is highly unlikely.

If the Germans beat the Soviets, it would free up not only the large part of the Luftwaffe for home defense, but also the German industry, allowing them to focus on aircraft, thus winning the air war. Also, with the defeat of the SU, it is EXTREMELY doubtful that Hitler would feel that it was necessary to declare war on the U.S. In addition, with the defeat of the SU as well as the defeat of the RAF, Isolationists would be louder than ever as well as the support for war in the American public would be non-existent.

TheKiwi · Jan 7, 2015

Oof said:
The main reason the Germans lost the war is because of the Italian invasion of Greece and the need for the Germans to intervene. The original date of Barbarossa had to be postponed by about five weeks. Without this delay, the Germans would have suffered less from the Rasputitsa during the autumn, which gave the Russians time to partially recuperate and prepare, and they would have had most of the summer to beat the Soviets. It’s very likely that more troops would have been encircled and destroyed in that period and the offensive for Moscow wouldn’t have started in Arctic conditions!

June was always going to be the start date for the invasion. The forces used in the Balkans/Greek operations were only a very minor part of the overall invasion force. At no point during the opening of the operation did any of the AG commanders act or move like they had lost time to make up for. There were minor delays due to the weather in May being very wet thus delaying the construction of extra airfields for the Luftwaffe.

Oof said:
The second reason is that Hitler kept shifting part of his armor forces between Leningrad and Moscow and as a result both offensives lacked the needed amount of armor to be successful.

The Wehrmacht already had problems supplying the forces in AG Central. Adding more armour simply makes that worse. The problems were never "not enough tanks", but always "not enough supplies". The AG commander of AGC complained that he never once received the full supply he needed at any point from 22 June onwards.

Oof said:
The question remains though if beating the USSR would have won Germany the war anyway? A victory in Russia would not have meant that all Germans troops could be withdrawn to other theatres and the conquered territory would need a lot of troops to guard it. This would mean that a great deal of supplies, gasoline, etc, would still have to be sent to the East, which caused so many problems after 1941. In such a “what if” scenario the cost of liberating Europe might have been too high for the Allies and some kind of draw might have been reached. But there is still the airpower problem, which decimated Germany industry, and the A-bomb. I guess the war was lost, when German air attacks during the Battle of Britain shifted from airfields to cities. Though a lot of historians think Hitler was never serious about invading Britain.

And maybe very maybe, the war was already lost when France was beaten in the summer of 1940. The German Blitzkrieg was the start of American interventionism and the start of the downfall of isolationism! And in that respect any successful invasion of Britain would have only strengthened American interventionist policies as would have a Russian surrender in 1941.

So the answer to your question is no. I don’t think there was any way the Germans in the long run would have been able to win the war. The best they could hope for was a draw but even that is highly unlikely.

It's pretty much only in HoI where an invasion of the UK can be successful under any circumstances.

f1nalstand17 said:
If the Germans beat the Soviets, it would free up not only the large part of the Luftwaffe for home defense, but also the German industry, allowing them to focus on aircraft, thus winning the air war. Also, with the defeat of the SU, it is EXTREMELY doubtful that Hitler would feel that it was necessary to declare war on the U.S. In addition, with the defeat of the SU as well as the defeat of the RAF, Isolationists would be louder than ever as well as the support for war in the American public would be non-existent.

The US was producing more aircraft per year than ever other country in the world combined. The UK was running second. The idea of any kind of "victory" in the air war due to expanded aircraft production post some theoretical "victory" over the USSR is very unlikely.

f1nalstand17 · Jan 8, 2015

TheKiwi said:
June was always going to be the start date for the invasion. The forces used in the Balkans/Greek operations were only a very minor part of the overall invasion force. At no point during the opening of the operation did any of the AG commanders act or move like they had lost time to make up for. There were minor delays due to the weather in May being very wet thus delaying the construction of extra airfields for the Luftwaffe.

The Wehrmacht already had problems supplying the forces in AG Central. Adding more armour simply makes that worse. The problems were never "not enough tanks", but always "not enough supplies". The AG commander of AGC complained that he never once received the full supply he needed at any point from 22 June onwards.

It's pretty much only in HoI where an invasion of the UK can be successful under any circumstances.

The US was producing more aircraft per year than ever other country in the world combined. The UK was running second. The idea of any kind of "victory" in the air war due to expanded aircraft production post some theoretical "victory" over the USSR is very unlikely.

This is always the problem with analyzing what if's; people always change one variable and ask themselves how would anything change. Usually they come up with nothing, and assume that history could not have changed at all from the path it took. What people fail to do, is to not only change one, but many variables. In addition, people usually analyze the short term consequences of a change but when they come up with nothing, they fail to go deeper.

What this has to do with you Kiwi, is that you only changed one variable (the SU loses) and also you fail to go deeper in your assessment (you simply examine aircraft production numbers of the US when they were at WAR in OTL, as well as simply look at the aircraft production numbers of the UK). You see, even if only one variable changed (the SU loses), aircraft production would not have been the decisive factor in this hypothetical "Second Battle of Britain". What would've been decisive is if the Germans focused on their more advantageous aircraft such as the FW 190(it had a tremendously larger range than the Bf-109E, especially when it was equipped with fuel tanks) as well as the most probable completion of the Ju 288 project, to take out the radar and sector stations (the Luftwaffe almost did this in the first Battle of Britain, but Hitler personally changed their mission to urban areas as revenge against the RAF raid on Berlin). It doesn't matter how many aircraft you build per month if you don't know where the enemy is going to strike next.

TheKiwi · Jan 8, 2015

f1nalstand17 said:
This is always the problem with analyzing what if's; people always change one variable and ask themselves how would anything change. Usually they come up with nothing, and assume that history could not have changed at all from the path it took. What people fail to do, is to not only change one, but many variables. In addition, people usually analyze the short term consequences of a change but when they come up with nothing, they fail to go deeper.

What this has to do with you Kiwi, is that you only changed one variable (the SU loses) and also you fail to go deeper in your assessment (you simply examine aircraft production numbers of the US when they were at WAR in OTL, as well as simply look at the aircraft production numbers of the UK). You see, even if only one variable changed (the SU loses), aircraft production would not have been the decisive factor in this hypothetical "Second Battle of Britain". What would've been decisive is if the Germans focused on their more advantageous aircraft such as the FW 190(it had a tremendously larger range than the Bf-109E, especially when it was equipped with fuel tanks) as well as the most probable completion of the Ju 288 project, to take out the radar and sector stations (the Luftwaffe almost did this in the first Battle of Britain, but Hitler personally changed their mission to urban areas as revenge against the RAF raid on Berlin). It doesn't matter how many aircraft you build per month if you don't know where the enemy is going to strike next.

The Luftwaffe didn't even come close to taking out the radar stations in the Battle of Britain. They took one out for a short period of time when they got lucky. The cost in Stuka's was so high they were withdrawn from the battle shortly thereafter. A 1942 (assuming the fall of the USSR) re-run is going to fail worse as the RAF had taken the opportunity to fortify the radar installations after the problems in 1940.

Thinking that magically the German Air Ministry (well known as one of the most inefficient and bureaucratic in a Nazi Germany that was notorious for such behaviour) is going to be able to determine which aircraft models are winners is rather unlikely. This is the same Air Ministry that backed the Me-210 & 410, the He-177, etc. The FW-190 didn't come into service until 1941 and was rapidly countered by the emergence of the Mk.IX Spitfire. The FW-190's victories largely came in an environment where the RAF was (stupidly) running intruder missions over France, thus burdening their fighters with the same range issues the Luftwaffe had experienced in 1940.

f1nalstand17 · Jan 8, 2015

TheKiwi said:
The Luftwaffe didn't even come close to taking out the radar stations in the Battle of Britain. They took one out for a short period of time when they got lucky. The cost in Stuka's was so high they were withdrawn from the battle shortly thereafter. A 1942 (assuming the fall of the USSR) re-run is going to fail worse as the RAF had taken the opportunity to fortify the radar installations after the problems in 1940.

Thinking that magically the German Air Ministry (well known as one of the most inefficient and bureaucratic in a Nazi Germany that was notorious for such behaviour) is going to be able to determine which aircraft models are winners is rather unlikely. This is the same Air Ministry that backed the Me-210 & 410, the He-177, etc. The FW-190 didn't come into service until 1941 and was rapidly countered by the emergence of the Mk.IX Spitfire. The FW-190's victories largely came in an environment where the RAF was (stupidly) running intruder missions over France, thus burdening their fighters with the same range issues the Luftwaffe had experienced in 1940.

I never claimed that the Luftwaffe came close to taking out the radar stations, but they did get VERY close to destroying the signal stations which are extremely important as well. Again, you're only taking a look at the short term effects with the aircraft. By 1942 the Fw 190 was tested and was confirmed by the RLM (German Air Ministry) as a proven design fit for mass production. You also fail to look at the capability of the German industry. In OTL when Barbarossa was launched the Germans had a huge problem taking out T-34's and KV-1's, but over the course of the war the industry adapted and met the requirements of the Heer by producing extremely powerful and capable tanks/tank destroyers (Long-barreled Pz IV, Panther, Tiger, StuG, Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger, etc.). But in this scenario there's no need for the industry to focus on this since the SU is defeated, and instead focus on aircraft. Because of this focus, it is possible for the German industry to make improvements on the Fw 190 (something that would resemble the D-9) to counter the Spitfire IX). Remember, the US is not in the war thus fighters such as the P-51 and P-47 don't get developed as much/fast as in OTL nor produced as much since there's no need for them. This is critical to the air war since both of these superb American fighters completely outclassed the Fw 190 A and were on par, if not better than the Fw 190 D-9.

Why Hitler lost the war.

Marshal

Field Marshal

Marshal

Field Marshal

Marshal

Field Marshal

Field Marshal

Colonel

Field Marshal

Field Marshal

Sergeant

Colonel

General

Field Marshal

Second Lieutenant

Colonel

Second Lieutenant

Colonel

Second Lieutenant

Colonel