Why did the Nazis lost WWII?

[grumbler]

Originally posted by sean9898
Do you think Lucas should have advanced on Rome? I know there was nothing to stop him taking the city, but the eventual German counter attack would have destoyed him.

I think that this is debatable. Lucas had a large number of well-trained and equipped troops, would have had the benefit of defending a built-up area, with a good supply source, local cooperation, and air superiority. If the Germans mustered the troops needed to take an urban area from almost 70,000 men, they would weaken the southern front to the point that their own encirclement might be accomplished.

The failure of Anzio was a failure of leadership. Mark Clark was one of the best Axis commanders of the war, responsible for more Allied deaths and disappointments than anyone not on the Russian front. He had little faith in the concept behind Anzio, and so issued Lucas contradictory orders designed to lead to the blaming of Lucas and the exoneration of Clark if the landings failed.

Mark Clark was, I think, the inspiration behind Fred Pohl and CM Kornbluth's "Political General."

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by sean9898
"Italy is a boot, best entered from the top"- Napoleon, which is pretty much the strategy the allies might have pursued.

Are you referring to a drive through the Alps from southern France, or something else? You may wish to look at what happened to the thirty-two Italian divisions that tried it in the other direction in 1940. Forcing the Alpine passes was not as easy in the 1940s as it had been in earlier centuries.

 

[unmerged(2539)]

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/online/WW2-ETO.htm

Just passing through....

Hannibal

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Agelastus


Are you referring to a drive through the Alps from southern France, or something else? You may wish to look at what happened to the thirty-two Italian divisions that tried it in the other direction in 1940. Forcing the Alpine passes was not as easy in the 1940s as it had been in earlier centuries.

No, not the Alps but a landing in the Northern part of Italy rather than the allied strategy. Better still IMHO no action after the Italian surrender.

 

[unmerged(2563)]

I did not feel like reading all those posts but basically this is how I see an winnable war for Germany. Italy sides with the allies (No N. Africa, no greece, most of all no Yugoslavia) They are swiftly defeated Japan and Germany both invade USSR in spring (Thusly Japan does not declare war on US at this stage), the Soviets are ill prepared after their adventure in Finland, Hitler invades Portugal (just because he feels like it ). At this point he can either build up and crush England or offer terms. A German A-Bomb I don't think was a possibility because they were trying to build one with irridium enriched water ("heavy water") instead of fusion, as far as I know heavy water can not make an A-Bomb to this day.

 

[unmerged(592)]

Nice Strategy. Ever heard the rumor that nice strategies never work?

The Japanese have not the army to deal with the USSR far east. then still what to do about the italian border? it's a persistent threat and if you invade italy you have to defend a long coastline. BTW it's not really clever to go for Portugal. Why in hell would you? same goes for suiss. why are the chances for an invasion of GB better if Portugal fell? again, another front close to africa which can easily be assaulted. Finally how do you get the japs to start a war with someone they neither can nor want engage? Though massive Soviet forces engaged in the finland campaign it didn't really hit hard but gave them some basic experience.

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Freikorps
I did not feel like reading all those posts but basically this is how I see an winnable war for Germany. Italy sides with the allies (No N. Africa, no greece, most of all no Yugoslavia) They are swiftly defeated Japan and Germany both invade USSR in spring (Thusly Japan does not declare war on US at this stage), the Soviets are ill prepared after their adventure in Finland, Hitler invades Portugal (just because he feels like it ). At this point he can either build up and crush England or offer terms. A German A-Bomb I don't think was a possibility because they were trying to build one with irridium enriched water ("heavy water") instead of fusion, as far as I know heavy water can not make an A-Bomb to this day.

How can Hitler build up and crush Britain? How do Japan and Germany defeat Russia?

How does Portugal become a key part of Axis strategy?

As for the heavy water, IIRC it was required in experimentation for atomic weapons, not necesarily their production.

There is simply no way Germany can win a two front war, and without major changes to their strategic war initiative no way to ever defeat Britain.

 

[unmerged(592)]

addition. may sound odd but after drinkin some beer I found a "strategy" (not that I am better when drunk but I find the plan better now)

the key to success is industry and politics. Speer-like engagement for 1933 on may have made Germany ready for a short war of 3 or 4 years.

giving all those crappy Panzer I & II to "non armored" units as suppot or to the allies (the italian tanks weren't any better) might have had a little impact when the tank formations instad used Panzer II & IV.

Usage of the Heinkel fighter (forgot the right name, marginally faster than a BF 109 and about 1/3 more range iirc) and building up at least a minimum force of longe range heavy bombers and transports migt have had an impact too. In general you come down to a small number of main points (with a lot of hindsight though)

1) coordination: real reliable integration of both navyand air force / army and airforce as well as integrated command of German and allied forces. What in reality existed was a mess. The link to Japan can be viewed as a political agreement without any substance and a coincidentally parallel war. Same goes to a lower degree for germany with italy. The whole balcan campaign could have been avoided and building up italian positions in the cyrenaica before they join in the war (maybe with some German help) would give a much better position for any attempt on egypt.

2) "right" equipment. You can't begin a war with the bare bones of what once might be a fleet. instead naval buildup should have been done according to what is going to be. This means recoginzing the end of the battleship era and focussing war effort on what is needed: a good tactical bomber force which is very well for continental warfare grouped together with a number of long range bombers and fighters for other purposes (say: Britain, strategic bombing in russia etc) It also would mean faster development of the walter engine uboats(a drive for u-boats that allows them to operate under water with high speed) etc and the recognition of RADAR or Funkmess devices.

3) "right" strategy & "right" policy. Mainly in france Germans were sometimes welcomed by many people. This however shifted mainly because of the suppressive regime and the deportation of people. Keeping people at least quiet if not friendly and using industry of occupied terrain more efficiently than it acutally happened should not be too hard if you have a sane policy instead of racial discrimination. In the east this opens a chance of eliminating partisans and instead finding a lot of people willing to fight for the german "liberators" and maybe a "free" satelite state. Talking Japan into first attacking British/French positions and (I don't think you could avoid this) only later attacking the US (1942) would maybe help a bit. An Attack on Siberia could only be useful as a diversion maneuver and I don't see the Japanese land forces with their weak tank and their crappy artillery fighting the soviet forces long enough until the war in the west has changed trhe situation enough to stop this threat. Though if thi was possible it would be fine for Germany, bad for Japan. A "right" strategy would include an early invasion of malta and gibraltar (malta was virtually undefended until the end of the French campaign) and would force Spain if not portugal into joining the war with some infantry (manpower IS an issue, equipment of those units might be a problem though)

A slightly better position in manpower through better politics and a better industrial base through early planning of total war might be the key to taking some more important Russian cities before the Winter of '41 and might do a bit to the African campaign. This mainly due to the fact that if you have the chance of building up fuel reserves and a tank division before joining the war and then making a decisive attempt for Kairo would be possible though still gambling. I generally don't see a much better position in Africa ( though at least minor improvements as stated here which could be the key )

Even with these changes to reality the whole war still is a lot of gambling and luck (or superior leadership as som might say) but it would at least give a marginal chance of a successful campaign until 1942. By then USSR is not entirely beaten but not a threat of the size of the USA. Japan might collapse under the US attacks while Germany has a lot to do to keep people happy, keep Britain down and building up a unified and stable empire in Europe. This wouldn't make Germany invincible but a strongly fortified continent is not an attractive target for the US and I don't see the US invading in 1944 or 45 when there is no real second front, no Italian or Russian theatre which draws attention and resources but a really strong fortress. And I also don't think the US will stay in a decisionless war for long. If the Nazi's aren't all that evil (-> good policy) I also don't see scientists fleeing to the USA building a big bomb. The US might have done it anyway but it would have taken longer while otoh the European industry and research potential without too many drains from war may be equally fast.

 

[unmerged(2563)]

The Portugal thing was an inside joke, and I didn't say it helped in any way or was part of a strategy I said because he wanted too. I postulated that the Soviets would not have been equipped to A)Move rapidly move forces from the west to deal with a large Japanese and B) Be too busy fighting a German invasion launched on time. I don't know how to convince them to fight the Soviets, say pretty pretty nazi please maybe? The Germans did not seem to have much of a problem keeping the allies in Southern Italy for some time, plus they would have all the extra forces that would have gone into Yugoslavia, Greece and N. Africa, and yes they have that coast line but who is going to invade it? The US hasn't entered the war the Soviets don't play that whole amphibian thing, and Britain alone most likely could not have pulled it off. (and I am sure that Mussolini would have figured some way to screw things up for the other allies). The Germans at this course would not be fighting a two front war, as in lew of declaring war on the US Japan declared war on the USSR, and consequently Germany would not have declared war on the US.

 

[unmerged(592)]

The US joining war was only a matterof time and advertisement. in early 1941 US involvement was "short of war" provocating a lot of encounters with german U boats that were good propaganda towards convincin fellow isolationists to change their minds. Also Amercian fleet building began long before pearl harbor.

At the very worst they would have somehow joined in 1942 or 43. Does it really matter if they spend '41-43 fighting japan or building up in peace? I guess no.

Answer one question: the USSR kept a formidable force on the border to manchuria how do you suppose the weak Japanese land forces to attack them? Their tanks are crap, their artillery would only do littledamage and their number wouldn't be sufficient for anything but small pushes. In WW II Japan always kept a large force on the Border to the USSR even AFTER a large part of their forces went to europe.

 

[unmerged(2563)]

The Japanese would have had air superiority to the Soviets and could have used it against the Soviet guns and armor. I forgot about China though so I guess it really wouldn't have worked

 

[unmerged(592)]

If I am correct most of the planes were possessed by the Japanese navy. I don't have any clu if they were equally trained for land and naval combat.

Hey your ideas are interesting. It's just the only way to find out if a strategy works out without executing it is theoretically trying every possible idea how it maybe could be trashed.

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Freikorps
The Portugal thing was an inside joke, and I didn't say it helped in any way or was part of a strategy I said because he wanted too.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

I postulated that the Soviets would not have been equipped to A)Move rapidly move forces from the west to deal with a large Japanese and B) Be too busy fighting a German invasion launched on time.

In '41 the Soviets had all those Siberian divisions on defending against just such a Japanese attack. Your scenario would hold them there, and thus stop the Moscow counter-attack. That at least may lead to a potential German capture of Moscow in 1942, or as likely, the disasterous Russian counter-attack in Ukraine is cancelled, and those troops under Zhukov counter attack out of Moscow.

I can't speculate as to what those Siberians do to a Japanese invasion, but worst case for Russia is that they probably have to be tied up out there the remainder of the war.

I don't know how to convince them to fight the Soviets, say pretty pretty nazi please maybe?

I agree with you that a coordinated Japan-Germany in Russia would be very dangerous for the Russians.

The Japanese would have had air superiority to the Soviets and could have used it against the Soviet guns and armor

The Germans had air superiority over Russia at least until Stalingrad, then air parity, probably until late '44. The Russians have land to give up and General Winter, which would work as well against the Japanse efforts as they did the Germans.

The Germans did not seem to have much of a problem keeping the allies in Southern Italy for some time, plus they would have all the extra forces that would have gone into Yugoslavia, Greece and N. Africa,

So wouldn't the British-Italians be able to hold off the German advance into Italy?

The German prescence in the Med was to tie up as many British troops as possible, something they carried out superbly. That front would probably be transfered to Italy/Norway/Southern France where the British would be trying to tie up German forces away from the Russian front.

The Germans at this course would not be fighting a two front war, as in lew of declaring war on the US Japan declared war on the USSR, and consequently Germany would not have declared war on the US.

If you include the Med, the Germans were fighting a 3 front war. The garrison troops in western Europe, the Uboat production, and the allied air campaign were the equivalent of a front. Unless you can knock Britain out of the war and recall all those troops from the Low Countries, France, Norway, Denmark and Italy/Med then Germany is still fighting Britain and Russia on a two front war.

 

[unmerged(2563)]

The Germans would have been invading Italy from the North so the British and Italians would not have had all that nice high ground that faces the South. As for the rest who's to say how that would have gone.

 

[unmerged(3993)]

Unknown USSR offensive during Uranus

Hello,
I've heard about a russian offensive during the Uranus operation. This offensive was more or less of the same size as Uranus, and ^probabely had an impact on the Uranus Operation. However I would like to have more information about it. I could have started a new thread, but I think that continuing this one is better, as here oine can find a lot of WWII specialists.

Thank You for your help.

@+

warl

 

[unmerged(1813)]

Re: Unknown USSR offensive during Uranus

Originally posted by warl
Hello,
I've heard about a russian offensive during the Uranus operation. This offensive was more or less of the same size as Uranus, and ^probabely had an impact on the Uranus Operation. However I would like to have more information about it. I could have started a new thread, but I think that continuing this one is better, as here oine can find a lot of WWII specialists.

Thank You for your help.

@+

warl

I believe you are refering to Operation Mars, the attack on the Rzhev Salient northwest of Moscow. It was originally scheduled to begin just before Uranus, then changed to just afterwards.
It was always thought to be a 'diversionary' offensive until David Glantz wrote his book, "Zhukov's Greatest Defeat: The Red Army's Epic Disaster in Operation Mars, 1942" (1999, U Press of Kansas, ISBN 0-7006-0944-X). This is a HIGHLY RECOMMENDED BOOK. Retired Col Glantz was the US Army's expert on the Red Army in WWII and after, got into the German 9th Army's extensive after-action report on the fighting plus all the Soviet memoirs, unit histories, and some classified stuff from the (former) Soviet archives.
By the sasy, 'Mars' is only one of many Soviet offensives throughout the war that have "disappeared into the archives" since the war. Glantz is slowly bringing them all to light in a series of (self-published) books called "Forgotten Battles of the German-Soviet War (1941-1945)". He's planned 8 volumes, has 5 out so far (Volume 5 is in two separate parts). Email him at Rzhev@aol.com for more information on these and other self-published material he has made available on the Eastern Front. These are superb studies, largely taken from Soviet staff documents out of the archives and German Situation Reports and maps. Some of them chronicle major operations virtually day by day with maps, strength reports by unit, and casualty figures.

End of Commercial

 

[unmerged(3993)]

Thank you Boris Badanov, it was this operation indeed. I 've heard of Glantz (i've ordered his book about soviet airborne troops). Thank you for his email too.

 

[unmerged(3115)]

Back on topic.
'Nazis' lost ww2 cause they had to rely on the german army to win all its wars. Perhaps if its members had numbered more than 20,000 it could have formed its own army to win ww2.

(enuff sarcasm for u? To call Gemany 'nazis' is rather pathetic and ill knowledged.)

 

[unmerged(3115)]

Originally posted by Sir Vangeel
a. & b. they would still have lost, the Brittish Empire and Russia were too powerfull.
It's not because the americans think they made the difference that that actually is true.

Wrong. British gold reserves ran out in 42' and without the lend lease paying for the british army,the war wood have ended then and there with a total colapse of the british economy.

 

[unmerged(3993)]

Stranger in the Germany armies

About:
Belrick said
'Nazis' lost ww2 cause they had to rely on the german army to win all its wars. Perhaps if its members had numbered more than 20,000 it could have formed its own army to win ww2.

What do youmean, beacause the german Army had many foreigners in its ranks
TheHiwis on the eastern front (they were soviet POW that worked for the wermacht, and reached the number of at least 100 000),

The SS had many foreign division (Viking, Charlemeagne, Bosniak, Croate, Caucasus, even some British ...). Himmler wanted the SS to be a kind of Nazi Foreign Legion,

Then you had axis troopos, that were figthing allong the germans, often under german commanders (Italian, Romanians ....), and their role should not be forgotten.


@+

warl