Company of Heroes: Eastern Front
Other discussions (Read-Only) => Eastern Front => Topic started by: bastex on January 12, 2010, 10:59:05 PM
-
Fighting silly odds a close second.
Production is the main substantive reason.
Had Germany designed and produced what it was capable of, their chances of success would have been far greater, even likley, bad leadership prevented them producing what they needed, fighting silly odds meant they needed it.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Partly because she acquired so many powerful enemies that they, combined, had many times the men and resources that Germany had. Also partly because Adolf Hitler assumed personal operational command of the German armed forces and did not know how to develop effective tactics and strategies. He though if he said something it must be true and that if he gave an order it would be carried out. Thus when his armies were overwhelmed by vastly superior forces which he claimed did not exist, he would have screaming fits and refuse to believe what he was being told. Michael Montagne
* Hitler. Start with Africa: it's amazing what Rommel accomplished with a hand full of men the 361st Panzergrenaider reg was made up of WW I veterans who had joined the French foreign legion he was always scraping for men and equipment.
After the Africa Korps had been pushed back to Tunisia Hitler saw his mistake and sent reinforcements including the 10th Panzer division and some Tiger tanks had these forces been sent much earlier I believe the Germans could have taken Egypt.
Most historians say Germany could never have conquered Russia, but this is not true. Some 3.5 million soldiers were encircled in the Ukraine I have seen film of the Ukrainians with flowers and kisses for the German soldiers much like when Allied soldiers liberated France. They hated Stalin, and had Hitler played his cards right many of these soldiers would have joined in the attack on Moscow. As it was the top German generals advised bypassing these surrounded Russian soldiers and marching on Moscow but Hitler insisted on smashing them than send in the SS. This delayed the attack on Moscow and put the Germans up against Russia's best weapon: mother winter. As it was they still could have taken Moscow but Hitler decided to take Leningrad at the same time and took vital divisions from the Moscow front.
Stalingrad was all Hitler's fault: sending Panzer divisions into a city was madness and what about Kurst? The Russians put everything thing they had into the battle after Stalingrad. Field Marshall Von Mainstien had the newly upgraded SS Panser Divisions, he crushed the Russians. Stalin wrote that they were never closer to defeat, the only thing that stopped the Germans was the rain but the battle could have continued a few months later when the ground froze. Instead Hitler decided to wait till summer so the new Panther tank could be used. Von Mainstien called this military suicide. Any commander with a half a brain would have called the battle off sooner but Hitler allowed his whole army to be ground into Hamburger.
The ME 262 jet fighter could have been deployed in early 1943 and would have put a stop to US daylight bombing but he insisted it be redesigned as a bomber. The top German aces eventually mutinied and refused to fly Hitler gave in and allowed 1 squadron of jet fighters. It was Hitler who ordered the attack in France that resulted in the massacre of German armor at Falise he was a buffoon.
* Germany lost world war 2 because Hitler when he invaded France, could have destroyed the rest of the British army at Dunkirk but instead he just sat there. and in North Africa Had Rommel Had more supply,tanks,men he could have easily taken Egypt. In Russia had Hitler not invaded the Caucasus Mountains and concentrated those forces in to the attack on Stalingrad thus taking the city and establishing bridgeheads across the Volga River, then driving onto Moscow. But of course Hitler invaded the cauces and the Crimea. This was unnecessary. This held even more units back frome the real objective Moscow.
Germany lost the war because Hitler didn't listen to his Generals, made decisions without thinking, and had no care for his troops.
The short answer, I suppose, is that Hitler ignored his own advice. In "Mein Kampf" he was critical of Germany's attempt to fight a "two front" war in World War I. In the Second World War, he turned around and did the same thing by attacking the Soviet Union. That was the beginning of the end. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
UPDATE: The reason Germany lost WW2 is because they were fighting on too many fronts. Deciding to attack Russia was a bad idea, as well as declaring war on the US. For some reason the US put 85% of its forces into Europe rather than attacking Japan after their cowardly attack on us. Hitler was a great leader. He was Time's man of the year and got his country out of a major slump.
Britain gained air superioty, Germany lacked resources and had gained too many enemies to think they stood a chance of winning. NO HITLER!
Like said before Nazi Germany had made the whole world its enemy hence world war. But the real reason is Hitler's crazy ideas like setting Panzer and infantry rally points hundreds of miles behind enemy lines. Sure the Blitz tactic was made to move fast but that was to far and if they didn't meet the rally point on the certain day Hitler became angry and moved them even farther back. This was crazy tanks would be stuck for days with no fuel and low ammunition How are you supposed to fight with only 10 shots? The fuel trucks came to the tanks not the tanks to the fuel trucks so that was a problem If the tanks had a real problem the infantry may be 3 or 4 days behind them which was also a problem. Then the Germans should have been happy with all of Europe besides Britain for a while. They should have built up and waited for operation Seal Lion to work. This operation was one of the best that the German's had made up. Basically it was the German D-day. But this plan had thousands of tanks and infantry landing on beaches with even more troops coming from the sky. But instead of being patient Hitler decided to run off and attack Russia. This was one of the dumbest ideas ever. Sending huge amounts of troops and aircraft to try and take Russia in a year? What was he thinking. No snow clothing, little food, and half of the troops going where needed for operation Sea Lion. What was he thinking. Now the Russians where angry and that is never good because they are so hard to break. They had to be some of the loyalist fighters the world has ever seen. Staking themselves to the ground so they wouldn't retreat! That shows amazing loyalty and should be respected to the max. But anyway now they where spread so thin and outnumbered the chances where so low of victory. They started to need fuel. They where done.
What should have been done is wait for all of Europe to be taken control of. Then don't kill the Jews that was just wrong and not a good way to make Allies After a nice army is remade invade Africa Hold the line and slowly move forward DO NOT GET AMERICA INVOLVED! That was so deadly to the Germans. Now take 1/2 of the German army and take the middle east. Make that modern take the oil and make a strong German land. Get all of the other nations to get to love you for modernising that area. Then get them to join your armies and take all the oil you need. Then back to Africa and keep moving up with fresh soldiers, fuel, and machinery During this be sucking up to Russia so they are very happy with you. Now you have Africa. Poor money into it. Modernise it and bring it out of poverty. Then get all the resources and soldiers you need move your entire army but those needed for riot control and move towards Russia. Get you food and winter clothing for all of your troops. When it is Spring attack with the blitz tactics. You should move forward without crazy rally points. After you take all of Russia which should take about two years if everything goes right put down all riots. Take control of Russia and hold it. Earn the love and respect of the people so they don't want to leave. Let them have a mini Russia inside of Germany so they still are happy about that. Then hold out till you have lots of stuff then the final assault on the US. Don't attack anywhere else because the US will build up defences. After a long hard fight you should have the US. Take Canada then move down to south America After that take anywhere else you don't have that camping would take around 7 years if everything went right. And don't kill Jews because that will cause an uproar from everywhere and you won't be able to but all the revolts down. And that is how the Germans could have taken over the world.
UPDATE: 6/13/09 IGNORE THE ABOVE!!!!!!! The United States would have entered the war one way or another due to the fact that Britian was their closest ally and they could not sit and watch them be destroyed by Germany. It is very possible that the United States was aware of the attack on Pearl Harbor and allowed the attack to occur to enter the war. If they knew it would be as bad as it was they probably would have prepared for the attack. Back to Germany; Germany lost World War Two for many reasons including Hitlers horrible war tactics, Germany running low on resources for the war, having to many enemies to fight, and having allies that did not have strong militaries and good war tactics. Hitler was some what a good leader for making Germany what it was and he was also a horrible leader for running Germany into the ground. Germany was meant to lose the war because of the many mistakes it made and their is no possible way that they could have taken over the world but possibly Europe. Germany losing World War Two was because of its leader and because of him making poor decisions and becoming corrupt from the absolute power he had.
ADDITION!!!!!!!!!!!!
What was said above about invading the U.S was stupid. #1- Russia was planning on entering the war a few months after Germany attacked her anyway. I do agree on sucking up though. This may have postponed their attack. #2- A beach landing of Amrica? D-Day was possible because they were only crossing the English Channel. An entire ocean completly stopped hitler from invading US soil. Not to mention Germany never attacked the US in the first place. It was japan. Japan itself was far too small to stage a beach landing on the West coast of the USA, and Hitler wuld have had to gone through Russia anyway to get there. During all these troop movements, Britain would attack German-occupied France. Even if Britain was gone and done with, the US and Canada would have the strongest army and navy in the world; diminishing any attempt to invade America. #3- Hitler didn't kill the Jews because he didn't like them or just because he felt like it. He did son so he could have a scapegoat for Germany's then poor financial position. This rallied the people and made them love Hitler for making their poverty make sense.
commit crimes against humanity
___
* The key year to look at is 1941. At the start of the year Germany had the initiative; but by the end of the year Hitler had thrown away that avantage quite unnecessarily. Early in the year Britain and the Commonwealth were of course still fighting, but their chances of defeating Germany were nil. During 1941 Germany attacked the Soviet Union and declared war on the U.S. From December 1941 on Germany found itself reacting to events - which was a huge disadvantage. 1942 became the 'make or break' year for Germany, and after Stalingrad, Germany was only able to prolong the war - not win it or even negotiate a tolerable peace treaty.
* Choice of main allies. The alliance with Italy was millstone round the Nazis' neck. Japan would only have made sense as an ally if it had attacked the Soviet Union in the Far East. Hitler's main alliance was based on ideology, not on shared interests.
UPDATE!
The above post is horribly and sadly false.
1. Germany was fighting three total fronts; The European, Russian and African. Hitler took France and his Panzer divisions were pushing into Spain. Hitler was a military tactical genious.
2. The US wanted into the war but at the time the population polls were against us entering the war. Since nothing had happened against the US we were neutral, however we were supplying England with money to keep Hitler out.
3. Hitler formed an alliance with Mussolini in the European front. He allied with different African tribes in the African campaign. Japan allied with Germany and Hitler, because they knew Hitler would win. He knew that they did not share the same ideology as these other leaders. The also discovered documents where Hitler had offered and secured officals close to his allied leaders and promised them offices of high ranking in the new world. The only stipulation was when the war was over they were to kill Mussolini and the African leaders.
4. The ME 262 was created and funded by a non-military company, when presented to Germany for the contract, Hitler was excited, quickly he signed a contract. ME-262 took an additional 2 years to enter production because of the limited amount of munitions that could handle that speed and manuverability. Those two years were spent making weapons that would utilize the plan to its max capability.
5. Blitzkrieg (Lightning Strike) was the perfect military attack. Use bomber to attack the city and before the dust settles march troops in. The reason that Hitler could not take England. To set up a blitkrieg troops had to be shuttled across the channel and landed on the beach. A limited number of troop transports were obtainned for this attack. The British caught wind of it and marched to the beach. The British stayed on a cliff and just was able to massacre the germans. Unfortunatly, no matter how much they were prepared for the attack, the Luftwaffe was still able to bomb areas of England back in time.
6. Hitler failed in Russia due to changing the aircraft engines from air cooled to water cooled. With air cooled aircraft in those cold frigid temperatures the engines would lock up and planes feel out of the sky. No Blitzkrieg, so hitler could never get farther into Russia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jeez, there are a lot of bad opinions above ! Bad grammar and writing as well.... Punctuate !!!
Everyone has opinions, but some of them dont wash.......
1.) I watched a documentary about Hitler's physician. They found his old medical logs and they concluded that for the duration of the war, he was administered medication similar to'speed'. This could explains the outbursts of rage, euphoria, depressions (vicious cycle) the belief he was indestructuble, the ideas that a magic solution would be found to win the war, even when things were looking dire. This would also have had a major effect on his decision making and how he carried on until the bitter end.
I guess this answers why some of his decision making was seen as 'mad' (against everyone's better judgement). Imagine if he had been clear off mind, had let his generals run the military machine, put people like Adolph Galland in charge of the Luftwaffe and Rommel/ Guderian / Kesslering (i.e. the Old Guard) of the Wehrmacht and the SS. Too often, his cronies manoevred for their political good, rather than unity of purpose.
Yes, he 'erred' with regards to the BEF....that was a major 'let off the hook' for the forces who would later be sent to North Africa, Sicliy, Italy and Normandy
He could have supplied hundreds more U-Boats to put the strangle hold on UK for the vital supplies coming from the US...they didnt know how close they got to strangling the supply routes in 42/43.
We all know how good the German industry has been, but they missed out on two simple designs. Heavy bomber (to rival Lancaster and B-17) ... and a tank that was as tough as the Tiger, as simple to maintain as the T-13 and in the numbers of the Sherman. Too often guilty of making excellent machnes, but too complicated and in insufficient numbers to make a strategic impact.
He also didnt learn from history. He knew what happened to Napoleon, but thought he could do the job quicker and in time. Ideally, waiting until April of 1942 would have been the best time and as someone righly said, North Africa could have been taken, then the Middle East and the strategic oil fields. His Generals urged him to take Moscow first (they got to within sight of the Kremlin), but he changed the objective....and the rest they say is history.
Luckily for us (although 60 million lives is beyond comprehension), he ran his country like an out of control tyrant, only listening to those inthe inner circle who were fighting for power until the end. Hard to believe that both Himmler and Goering tried to make peace with the Allies behind Hitler's back, all totally ignorant that the world would judge every Nazi in power.....
this is my idea why the krauts lost (yes its me loup) any 1 doesnt agree just yell so i can answer :P
-
nice Wiki page ;D
-
that isnt wiki that is my work !
-
that isnt wiki that is my work !
yeah........no who did you get HALF of this from. Also just tell people to watch a documentary rather than to read this....this thing
-
The krauts lost the war because they were bastards and no Ruski, Tommy or Yankee would allow such evil to exist in their world.
Millions died to stop them, no one should glorify their deeds or even imply that they could have won. To do so would dishonor all those who fought to stop them.
-
"Yankee (America) would allow such evil to exist in their world."
I could say something.......but politics always get very touchy online (we all learned this when I brought up Ireland)
-
Note that I did give top billet to the Russians and British because they were in the war longer and suffered much hardship. Could the US have won the war without Russia? In my opinion, yes. But thank Stalin we didn't have to.
Everybody forgets that even if we were not able to win the war on the ground, having nuclear capability by '45 means that no nation in the world could stand up to the US at her peak.
Russia beating Germany, means that Germany didn't get nuked.
-
I think the German soldiers deserve as much appreciation as the Russians, soldiers of the Commonwealth, French and all others who fought against the "Evil Reich".
-
Well...saying that the germans were evil it kinda unfair, german soldiers were people like any other with hopes, fears, dreams. Their lost is a tragedy.As the lost any human life is .Most of german soldiers were not even nazis so saying them they were evil its unfair at least...
-
Well...saying that the germans were evil it kinda unfair, german soldiers were people like any other with hopes, fears, dreams. Their lost is a tragedy.As the lost any human life is .Most of german soldiers were not even nazis so saying them they were evil its unfair at least...
I'm sorry but I can't take this man seriously AS LONG AS HE HAS A SKULL AND CROSS BONES AS HIS PICTURE.
-
I like the Totenkopf simbol because it has the emblem of prussian hussars WHO HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH NAZIS. ::)
Can your take me seriously now man? :P
-
Well, now, I can't take Ryousan seriously because he
took off his Totenkopf symbol and bowed so easily to
pressure :(
- Exactly. Soviet Union was preparing to attack Germany anyways.
Stalin was infuriated he got attacked first, with his pants down:)
- Exactly. Jews were scapegoat. No killing jews, No nazi,
no modernized army, no WW2 :)
: On a whole, it's like saying it was a big game of rock
paper scissors. Hitler might have won if he'd chosen rock
instead of scissors... fine. Hindsight is 20/20. It's easy
to criticize Hitler. 'If I'd been in his shoes, I would have...'
Nyet. If you'd been in his shoes, you would never have gotten the whole show started and running, much less
won against France in the first place :) WW2 would have
been WW1 part2.
: Oh god yes!! Ohh, Adolf Galland running the Luftwaffe
... I just woke up :( The guy who ran it Henreich
something (ex hero of WW1 ace) fatso idiot was #1
reason Germany went down. WHY DID HITLER LISTEN
to him :p If anything, he'd ought to have gotten his
head bitten off way sooner :(
: Bastex : Your posts reads like one of my old ones dude :)
-
Well I guess we cant make everyone happy...
When a find cooler Totenkopf avatar I will put it.
-
LOUP DID YOU HYJACK MY ACCOUNT !?!?!?!?
-
Haha, did you actually? Bad wolf, back to the forest with you...
You mean Hermann Goering Loup?
Yeah he was a bit of a tit, but the German public loved him because of his exploits in WW1 and his general persona, so was pretty useful as a nice PR face for the Nazis, to prove they werent all mentalist ex-chicken farmers like Himmler.
-
Bastex : LOL No, I did not hijack your account. Sorry :)
Luz777 : Yea, Hermann Goering. Interesting character.
Almost necessary to get Luftwaffe off the ground. But,
I think his story is the same as that of Nazi Germany and
Roman empire. Their success got the best of them, they
then got fat, lazy, complacent, and it all came crashing
down :)
-
With the exception that the Roman Empire lasted for centuries and Nazi Germany just twelve years....
-
I like the Totenkopf simbol because it has the emblem of prussian hussars WHO HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH NAZIS. ::)
Can your take me seriously now man? :P
when did I say anything about Nazis?
-
when did I say anything about Nazis?
Most people have the tendecy of associate them... 8)
-
when did I say anything about Nazis?
Most people have the tendecy of associate them... 8)
nice spelling did you mean tendency?
-
nice spelling did you mean tendency?
stupid keyboard...
And yeah thats what I meant
-
I read about the first 6 posts and saw that the whole brainwash of modern history has done a fine job in BSing our youth.
The first post was fantastic, with lots of information and points, so instead of replaying to other posts, I will just reply to that one ;D
There are several reasons the Germans lost the war. Manpower is certainly a reason. Production. Tactics. All these played parts. I think it's virtually impossible to say any ONE of these things hurt them more then the other. I'm an American and am big enough to admit that WWII was won or lost in the East, not the West. That doesn't mean the Brits, French, Dutch, Americans and later, Italians didn't contribute or suffer badly but they faced a shadow of what the Russians faced.
The Dunkirk incident certainly was a blunder, based on politics. Hitler allowed Goering to play politics on the battlefield and it gave the British some much needed breathing room. This however could have been over come, in my opinion.
Fighting on too many fronts is really the biggest issue. You can talk about man power and productions, all of which are important, but Hitler stretched his armies out too thin and left too much unfinished business in too many areas. For example, Dunkirk, which gave the British a strong force to build off of and recuperate with. Africa was also, doomed to fail. As famed (and deservedly so) as the Afrika Korps was, they were never going to win and the BEST Hitler could hope for was a stale mate. Now, obviously hindsight is 20/20 but Rommel was doomed in Africa, especially since the Allied air power was so vast.
Italy's incompetence (no offense to any Italians!) was an extra and un-needed strain on the German war machine. These vast areas could not be effectively defended by Italian troops which resulted in Germany being forced to pump productions, supplies, men and material into other theaters of war which in turn detracted from the important areas such as the West Wall and Eastern Front.
The Allied countries always talk about the Axis of Evil but to be honest the Axis weren't anything close to being helpful to each other. Japan for example, had prevented Stalin from taking his crack Siberian Divisions from Russia's vast hinterland and using them against the Wehrmacht in the 1941. Once Stalin's spies had informed him that Japan planned on attacking Pearl Harbor, Stalin wasn't concerned about them helping Germany by attacking the other side of Russia. This allowed Stalin to move a massive amount of divisions to the Russian Western Front. These units ended up being the divisions, corps and armies that were built up to make the massive counter offensives for Russia. The point here is that Italy failed to protect their own borders and Japan was too consumed with attacking America. This caused the Axis (not just Germany) to be spread too thin and unable or unwilling to help each other out.
A personal opinion of mine which continues to grow with research is the battle of Crete (Operation Mercury)! It was an operation where German Fallschirmjagers took the island but were attacked and effective cut down by local Greek resistance. They succeeded but at great costs. Hitler swore he would never allow his troops to be thrown into a situation like that again. For the rest of the war, most of the Fallschirmjagers served simply as infantry divisions with airborne training. The reason this is key is because for the Western Allies, some of our greatest and most famed divisions were airborne! We were able to utilize these divisions to harass and interferer with German supplies, transportation and communications. They were incredibly effective. The Russians never faced that extra aspect during the German invasion! As bad as things went for Russia initially, they never dealt with any divisions of Fallschirmjagers harassing their supply, communication or transportation. They never had to worry about German Fallschirmjagers disrupting their reinforcements. Our airborne divisions EXCELLED at this and caused massive logistical issues for the Wehrmacht. The Russians never had to deal with those logistical nightmares, which almost certainly would have hindered them because A) they were logistically NOT prepared for war and thus would have had more problems as the war continued that they would have had to adept to, which is very hard in that situation and B) as I previously mentioned, many of the Russian divisions that won the war were Guard units and Siberian units. A vast majority of which came from the far eastern reaches of the Russian empire! The Fallschirmjagers could have slowed this progress and caused massive issues for the Russians, especially because of the land mass of Russia, allowing German troops to drop in and harass virtually unknown! It was a logistical nightmare for the German high command to account for our airborne divisions and it certainly would have been for the Russians to account for the German ones.
The sheer lack of manpower in Germany. This goes along with being stretched too thin. In Paul Carrol's book he states that all 3 army groups needed at least one more ARMY in each group to successfully execute the plans given by the German high command. Basically, this means they just didn't have enough men in the areas needed, at the TIME needed, to strike the big blows such as Operation Typhoon, the invasion of the Crimea (where the city of Sevastopol held out for 250 days from October 30, 1941 until July 4, 1942, when the Germans finally were able to captured the city!) and the huge failure of Army Group North in the area of Leningrad.
As far as production, by late '41 and early '42 the Main German Battle tank was no longer the Panzer III but the Panzer IV. I don't have his book in front of me but the difference in productions is outstanding. Something like 4,000 Panzer IVs were made in '41, while a FAR greater number of T-34s were made. And the T-34 was superior to the Panzer IV, even with the PIV's latest upgrades to combat the strong Russian armor. So not only was Germany out produced that year, but the quality of what was being produced was also in favor of the Russians. Even with that being said, none of it should have been a factor IF Hitler would have stuck to his OWN original plan. Instead he diverted troops, material and resources one several occasions, moving several Panzer groups around carelessly and refusing to attack Moscow in September as he had planned, but instead sending everything to the south. That coupled with the fact that they hadn't take Leningrad, which was the first major objective of Operation Barbarossa, DIdn't take Moscow when it was ripe for the taking and never took Stalingrad means all 3 major cities eluded Hitler's grasp because he, himself, changed his objectives of a campaign he claimed would only take 6 weeks. ???
-
While what you say is true, I think that without Russia the Allies still had a fighting chance.
The invasion of France and perhaps that of Italy would not have happened until much later without the Russians help. Because of these delays we might have not ever even invaded!
With the Manhattan project being unaffected by the wars progress, working Nuclear weapons would have still been procured by July 16, 1945.( The date of the trinity test.)
Without nukes we may have lost, but with them all of Berlin would be radioactive dust along with Hitler's bones.
-
While what you say is true, I think that without Russia the Allies still had a fighting chance.
A chance, but very slim and it would have ONLY have been in the project you mention below...nuclear weapons. That being said we would never have used Nukes against Germany. While America is it's own country we were settled and founded by several European countries. Like it or not we act and fight like Europeans (maybe with a twist :P ;D). Japan isn't centrally located like Germany is, smack dab in the middle of a continent. The fallout would not only have effected Germany but France, Belgium, Austria, Romania, etc etc (basically TONS of other countries!). That alone would have been a deterrent but on top of that since we fight in the European fashions we also show the same respect and honor that European etiquette suggests. That means (imo) even if Germany would have been isolated and no one else would have been affected, we wouldn't have dropped an A-Bomb on them (unless Hitler first had nukes :o).
The invasion of France and perhaps that of Italy would not have happened until much later without the Russians help. Because of these delays we might have not ever even invaded!
We couldn't have. Think about how close Operation Overlord was to failure. Some historians believe if Rommel would have been allowed to have the divisions in reserve under his direct command the invasion would have failed. If you take that opinion and, in an alternative reality we exam this with the possibility that the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact wasn't broken, that means Hitler (who invaded Russia with roughly 3.5 MILLION men) would have easily fortified Western Europe against Allied invasions. Italy and France would have been so well defended it was crazy. This would also have allowed for a much more successful German invasion of Africa. The Western Allies only faced a small percentage of the German Wehrmacht, where as the Russians faced about 90% of it! Along with that the Luftwaffe would have been much stronger, being able to defend the armies better against Allied Air power because all the Air Armies would have been stationed in Germany/France/Italy instead of spread out all over Europe.
With the Manhattan project being unaffected by the wars progress, working Nuclear weapons would have still been procured by July 16, 1945.( The date of the trinity test.)
Without nukes we may have lost, but with them all of Berlin would be radioactive dust along with Hitler's bones.
Agreed, but I already pointed out my opinion on that situation earlier in my reply ;D :P
-
We did not know about the adverse effects that nuclear weapons had on the surrounding area at that time. ( aka fallout) Most of the scientists on the Project wanted to nuke Germany because many of them were Jewish. In fact a petition was made by some to not nuke Japan because they felt that only Germany deserved such a devastating weapon.
Yes, Truman would have dropped the bomb.
That alone would have been a deterrent but on top of that since we fight in the European fashions we also show the same respect and honor that European etiquette suggests.
Oh yeah, etiquette went out the window when they killed 6 million Jews. Just a reminder that the Holocaust happened, and we knew about it in 1942.
-
I don't think we knew about in '42. The Holocaust isn't my specialty however, so I could be wrong, i'm much more knowledgeable about the war, production, logistics etc etc.
That being said KNOWING about it and suspecting some foul play are different IMO. Things had been going on since about 1933 but none of those things were the whole sale slaughter of Jewish families and others by the mass concentration camps where they were basically thrown into ovens (not making light, just simply saying the brutal honest truth). That practice didn't start till later. When soldiers and officers found the concentration camps they were taken aback. They knew Hitler had hated the Jewish community but didn't think he had gone THAT far.
I find it amazing that they had no idea what fallout was. You would think with all the formulas and testing that they would have at least ANTICIPATED something along these lines. Kinda crazy if thats true.
I'm glad they didn't drop the bomb on Germany. I wish they wouldn't have on Japan. It sets a dangerous precedent. I'm not some tree hugging, peace loving hippie by any means ;D but when you study HOW badly Japan was already torn apart by our endless bombing runs you quickly find out that basically 80% of their infrastructure was gone, the civilians were war ravaged and THEN we dropped the bomb. The actual damage was minimal. The big reason for it was Psychology really. But to get back on point about Germany, not all Germans were Nazi and nuking them would have caused more collateral damage then any good that would have came from it.
Just my opinion anyhow.
-
We know now how horrible it would have been for all of Europe but at the time, without all the post war studying, we would have done it. There is no doubt in my mind.
-
We know now how horrible it would have been for all of Europe but at the time, without all the post war studying, we would have done it. There is no doubt in my mind.
Well with that, good thing we didn't lol because we would have been looked at in a VERY bad light after, even by our allies!
-
Yeah, I'll drink to that.
To peace. To Russia. To this mod.
Let us play war so most of us don't have to.
-
Amen to that.
I'd rather PLAY way than for REAL war to go on.
We are all brothers.
A lot of things I could say right now, but it would take
a loup-sized post and I'm not in the mood right now :)
-
I do think though that there are two events which could've given Germany victory.
People have always criticized Hitler’s move to split the panzer armies from army group centre. By sending Guderian south to Kiev and bagging 660,000 prisoners before Moscow had been taken. This had its obvious advantages, but one thing that I have never seen discussed is what instead of instead of sending those panzers and panzer grenadier division north to Leningrad, if they had of used them to continue the advance on Moscow from the northern flank? To me, in sending them to Leningrad they could have been a use to help any assault, though he didn’t opt for this and instead sieged it so that the Russians would be burdened rather than them, by the need to feed the massive civilian population over winter. To me if he had of ordered the assault and the city fell, it would of freed up an enormous amount of troops necessary to go on to Moscow the following spring, whilst bagging over 500,000+ prisoners, I know about then having to feed the civilians but to me this would of been worth the effort.
So to me he should have either let them continue to Moscow while it was largely undefended, or take the casualties losses in an assault on Leningrad.
The 2nd grand mistake was in operation blue (the 1942 offensive into the causacus). When the Germans were advancing towards Stalingrad they encountered virtually no resistance, so Hitler ordered the 4th Panzer army to crossover the path of Paulus's 6th Army group and head towards the Baku oilfields. What resulted was vehicles being congested, breaking down, units taking the wrong roads etc, and as a result Paulus's advance was virtually brought to a standstill for 3 weeks. And it was only in these last 3 weeks that the Russians built their defences and were reinforced around Stalingrad, hence had they not been delayed, they would of easily defeated the Russians there just like they did for every other major city. The reason why this is so important is not because of the reduced German casualties in men and tanks (who would also now be freed to counter any Russian historical envelopment attacks). But because the Volga was the only way left for the Russians to ferry all of their fuel being produced from the Baku oil fields into Russia. And with the Germans now easily able to prevent any ferries going up the river, Russia's economy/armies would of been brought to a standstill, and Stalin would have been forced to surrender.
Other contributing but not sole factors I think were Hitler’s decision not to put the economy onto a full time war production until after Feb 1943 was pretty dumb.
The Germans had the necessary winter clothing for the men, at the rail yards, but due to the extremely limited amount of trains that they were able to operate, it was a decision of "do we send them ammunition/fuel or clothes?". So it may very well of been Russia's use of different size gauge rail tracks that won them the war.
Though I wouldn’t entirely blame Hitler for their defeat either. Up until October 1942 he had achieved outstanding success in Europe, that is highly unlikely to of been unmatched by any other individual. He was able to lift Germany’s economy from the great depression and huge debt owed to the Allies for WW1, and it was he who encouraged and approved the blitzkrieg doctrine, against the advice of nearly all his senior army staff. He was responsible for the promotion and greater responsibilities given to relatively unknown generals in Von Manstein, Guderian, Rommel etc, and did away with the trench warfare loving old guard generals. He went for the close bomber support over the favoured strategic bombing (which was post-war realised to have been grossly over exaggerated). He favoured submarines over a surface fleet wanted by the admirals. He annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia without a shot fired, an amazing political manoeuvre.
Many thought Poland would withstand the German attack for 6 months (is why the French did not react initially), yet Hitler chose the plan responsible for Poland’s surrender in a matter of 5 weeks.
The senior German staff wanted to re-use the schliffein plan to invade France, though Hitler overrode them and went with the unknown commander Erich Von Mansteins plan with a few adjustments. A stroke of genius. Also at the time very few could criticize him for the halt order at Dunkirk. The German high command had wanted to halt Guderian’s advance for a number of days preceding it, however Hitler overrode them and let Guderian continue to make the Dunkirk encirclement even possible. In addition, the terrain was notoriously bad for tank warfare/movement, and France was still far from beaten, so he still needed all of his tanks to ensure victory against the French who were easily considered to have the greatest army in the world at the time.
What’s more is that he was right to consider Africa a complete sideshow, and the men and supplies were of much greater importance on the Russian front. As even if Germany did capture the middle east, they and the Italians combined didn’t have enough of a merchant fleet to ship any of the oil back to Europe for refinement and actual use.
In the face of the soviets 1941 winter counter offensives, every German general wanted abandon all their vehicles and equipment to withdraw hundreds of miles, however Hitler ordered them to adopt a hedgehog style of defence which amazingly held the line, with few combat casualties. And Historians have since believed that if the generals had of got their way, that not only would they have lost vast amounts of vital equipment but also that their troops would have been cut down and suffered numerously more thousands of casualties to frostbite. Then the decision to not allow the Stalingrad pocket to escape, whilst costly, was believed to have saved the entire Southern Group A (2-3 times larger than Army group 6) As it forced 7 Russian army groups to dig in around and tie down the German 6th army at Stalingrad, preventing the Russians from marching on to the undefended city of Rostov and cutting off and annihilating all of Army Group A, which was still trying to retreat as quickly from deep within the Caucasus. Coupled with the previous winters successful supply of the Demansyk pocket with 100,000+ German troops for several months, he actually made the correct decision. Though in a way I would put part of the blame back on him for not providing more resources that could have been made available to the front.
As for declaring war with the US, this had no meaningful influence whatsoever until 1943, by which time the Germans chances of success on the Eastern front were already gone. So whilst not smart, it only hastened the end of the war, which was always going to be decided by the results of the Eastern Front in 1941-42.
After the Germans unsuccessful attempt to rescue the Stalingrad pocket however, all hope of victory was lost, and no decision however crazy was going to stop the Russians.
I had previously thought that the best year to attack Russia would have been in 1942, though experts have since sighted that after the great Russian officer purges and their dismal performance of the Russians-Finnish war (1940), that their officers/doctrines and recruit training, was going through a complete overhaul, and would have been able to defend against the Germans in stages with much greater efficiency, had they had the time to carry it out. In addition the Russians would have finished relocating all of their factories into the Urals. Also by 1942, the Russians would have learned through their famous spy (Richard Sorge) that the Japanese did not plan to attack into Siberia, and hence the Russians could have moved most of their Siberian divisions into Eastern Europe to further bolster the defences.
-
I do think though that there are two events which could've given Germany victory.
People have always criticized Hitler’s move to split the panzer armies from army group centre. By sending Guderian south to Kiev and bagging 660,000 prisoners before Moscow had been taken. This had its obvious advantages, but one thing that I have never seen discussed is what instead of instead of sending those panzers and panzer grenadier division north to Leningrad, if they had of used them to continue the advance on Moscow from the northern flank? To me, in sending them to Leningrad they could have been a use to help any assault, though he didn’t opt for this and instead sieged it so that the Russians would be burdened rather than them, by the need to feed the massive civilian population over winter. To me if he had of ordered the assault and the city fell, it would of freed up an enormous amount of troops necessary to go on to Moscow the following spring, whilst bagging over 500,000+ prisoners, I know about then having to feed the civilians but to me this would of been worth the effort.
So to me he should have either let them continue to Moscow while it was largely undefended, or take the casualties losses in an assault on Leningrad.
I have always believed that if Hitler would have allowed Guderian and Hoth to attack Moscow when they were on the door step they could have taken Moscow. A minimum of 3 weeks passed before Hitler gave the order for Operation Typhoon and by then the Russians had dug trenches, holes, fortified, reinforced and strengthened the overall position diligently. This along with the fact that the men's morale had dropped somewhat because of the weather and the fact that Moscow was the original target, only to be halted with lead elements just 5 miles away, combined to ruin the German chances.
If Hitler would have stuck to his very own plan and time table the Wehrmacht could very well have crushed Russia. Barbarossa had gone nearly as well as it had been written up (which rarely ever happens in war lol). The fact that the Germans even had a CHANCE in '42 to still win must attest to the superb discipline, training, and leadership those men had. To be honest (and some will argue, and hindsight is 20/20!) Barbarossa was only scheduled to take 6 weeks and then by 1942 when the Germans STILL hadn't won I can't believe they didn't offer Russia peace. They were out manned, produced and in a foreign country, executing an offensive that was originally designed to last only into the early fall of 1941. Pretty crazy.
The 2nd grand mistake was in operation blue (the 1942 offensive into the causacus). When the Germans were advancing towards Stalingrad they encountered virtually no resistance, so Hitler ordered the 4th Panzer army to crossover the path of Paulus's 6th Army group and head towards the Baku oilfields. What resulted was vehicles being congested, breaking down, units taking the wrong roads etc, and as a result Paulus's advance was virtually brought to a standstill for 3 weeks. And it was only in these last 3 weeks that the Russians built their defences and were reinforced around Stalingrad, hence had they not been delayed, they would of easily defeated the Russians there just like they did for every other major city. The reason why this is so important is not because of the reduced German casualties in men and tanks (who would also now be freed to counter any Russian historical envelopment attacks). But because the Volga was the only way left for the Russians to ferry all of their fuel being produced from the Baku oil fields into Russia. And with the Germans now easily able to prevent any ferries going up the river, Russia's economy/armies would of been brought to a standstill, and Stalin would have been forced to surrender.
Ya these logistic nightmares were common for the Germans in Russia. They couldn't believe the lack of infrastructure lol.
Hoepner, 4th Panzer Group commander, had been haulted in the initial invasion at least once for an extended period (perhaps twice, can't recall right off my head) because Hitler was afraid they would penetrate too deep into Russia. While this could be a concern, the boldness of Barbarossa in the first place, would suggest that the field commanders needed also to be bold but were continually handcuffed by Hitler himself.
Other contributing but not sole factors I think were Hitler’s decision not to put the economy onto a full time war production until after Feb 1943 was pretty dumb.
The Germans had the necessary winter clothing for the men, at the rail yards, but due to the extremely limited amount of trains that they were able to operate, it was a decision of "do we send them ammunition/fuel or clothes?". So it may very well of been Russia's use of different size gauge rail tracks that won them the war.
The rail gauge was believed to be a major reason the Russians were beaten back by Germany in WWI so certainly it would be a reason in the reverse situation as well. The real problem was supply officers seemed to be crapping out on their jobs IMO. A story is related that around Christmas of 1941 a rail car brought up much needed supplies to one of the forward divisions. It was rumored they were getting some food stuffs and winter issue clothes. When they opened it, it was a massive car packed full of wine and champagne to celebrate the new year. And because of the weather...it was all frozen solid.
Though I wouldn’t entirely blame Hitler for their defeat either. Up until October 1942 he had achieved outstanding success in Europe, that is highly unlikely to of been unmatched by any other individual. He was able to lift Germany’s economy from the great depression and huge debt owed to the Allies for WW1, and it was he who encouraged and approved the blitzkrieg doctrine, against the advice of nearly all his senior army staff. He was responsible for the promotion and greater responsibilities given to relatively unknown generals in Von Manstein, Guderian, Rommel etc, and did away with the trench warfare loving old guard generals. He went for the close bomber support over the favoured strategic bombing (which was post-war realised to have been grossly over exaggerated). He favoured submarines over a surface fleet wanted by the admirals. He annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia without a shot fired, an amazing political manoeuvre.
Many thought Poland would withstand the German attack for 6 months (is why the French did not react initially), yet Hitler chose the plan responsible for Poland’s surrender in a matter of 5 weeks.
The senior German staff wanted to re-use the schliffein plan to invade France, though Hitler overrode them and went with the unknown commander Erich Von Mansteins plan with a few adjustments. A stroke of genius. Also at the time very few could criticize him for the halt order at Dunkirk. The German high command had wanted to halt Guderian’s advance for a number of days preceding it, however Hitler overrode them and let Guderian continue to make the Dunkirk encirclement even possible. In addition, the terrain was notoriously bad for tank warfare/movement, and France was still far from beaten, so he still needed all of his tanks to ensure victory against the French who were easily considered to have the greatest army in the world at the time.
What’s more is that he was right to consider Africa a complete sideshow, and the men and supplies were of much greater importance on the Russian front. As even if Germany did capture the middle east, they and the Italians combined didn’t have enough of a merchant fleet to ship any of the oil back to Europe for refinement and actual use.
Hitler had shown a great mind of strategy in the early going. That being said lets not take away from the field officers who actually had to execute the plans and see to the men and of course the men themselves who fought!
Guderian was not an unknown by any means. He had been a high ranking general is the Reichswehr army and had been the lead man in developing blitzkrieg tactics while the Germans and Russians worked together in the '30s.
Austria and Czechoslovakia were amazingly impressive, no question.
Dunkirk was a blunder no matter how you dress it IMO. Just me though.
Africa was most definitely a second rate theater. If you figure (just as a rough example) that Rommel was outnumbered 2:1 then Germany was tying down more enemies with less effort. While it was important, I don't ever think Africa was a "crux" of Germany's success or failure.
In the face of the soviets 1941 winter counter offensives, every German general wanted abandon all their vehicles and equipment to withdraw hundreds of miles, however Hitler ordered them to adopt a hedgehog style of defence which amazingly held the line, with few combat casualties. And Historians have since believed that if the generals had of got their way, that not only would they have lost vast amounts of vital equipment but also that their troops would have been cut down and suffered numerously more thousands of casualties to frostbite. Then the decision to not allow the Stalingrad pocket to escape, whilst costly, was believed to have saved the entire Southern Group A (2-3 times larger than Army group 6) As it forced 7 Russian army groups to dig in around and tie down the German 6th army at Stalingrad, preventing the Russians from marching on to the undefended city of Rostov and cutting off and annihilating all of Army Group A, which was still trying to retreat as quickly from deep within the Caucasus. Coupled with the previous winters successful supply of the Demansyk pocket with 100,000+ German troops for several months, he actually made the correct decision. Though in a way I would put part of the blame back on him for not providing more resources that could have been made available to the front.
I have considered the whole 6th Army pocket thing for some time in my research and I don't agree with it, here is why: on paper, yes they held out and soaked up vast more numbers of Russians. The problem was Germany had no real chance to get back to them (which is the whole point of them holding out, Hitler said they would counter attack and relieve them). If you take Bastogne as a similar example elsewhere, the 101st AB division was moving forward, relatively fresh. The 6th Army had been bogged down in heavy and costly urban warfare which most German commanders admit, Russian soldiers were better at, and they were extremely fatigued. If the 6th Army had been well rested and supplied and just moved in, THEN got cut off, I think they could have held out. But the battered divisions were so war weary already (and especially from the previous offensives, not just the fighting at Stalingrad) they simply couldn't consistently defend their positions. Simply put, in my opinion, the men were stretched too thin and were just beat tired.
As for declaring war with the US, this had no meaningful influence whatsoever until 1943, by which time the Germans chances of success on the Eastern front were already gone. So whilst not smart, it only hastened the end of the war, which was always going to be decided by the results of the Eastern Front in 1941-42.
After the Germans unsuccessful attempt to rescue the Stalingrad pocket however, all hope of victory was lost, and no decision however crazy was going to stop the Russians.
I had previously thought that the best year to attack Russia would have been in 1942, though experts have since sighted that after the great Russian officer purges and their dismal performance of the Russians-Finnish war (1940), that their officers/doctrines and recruit training, was going through a complete overhaul, and would have been able to defend against the Germans in stages with much greater efficiency, had they had the time to carry it out. In addition the Russians would have finished relocating all of their factories into the Urals. Also by 1942, the Russians would have learned through their famous spy (Richard Sorge) that the Japanese did not plan to attack into Siberia, and hence the Russians could have moved most of their Siberian divisions into Eastern Europe to further bolster the defences.
Ya imo, if the Germans hadn't won by EARLY 1942, they weren't going to win. To many "secondary" issues had gone against them, like Japan's armies not threatening the Russian Eastern borders, Russian production, German fatigue, and a whole wash list of other issues.
-
The german army wasn't "EVIL" Most of the Wehrmacht lost their faith in Hitler and didn't like his inhumane acts.
Most of the attempts to kill Hitler actually came from his own officers.
Later into the war the SS replaced the Wehrmacht as the main military force of the German army because of the Wehrmacht's unfaithfulness to the Fuhrer.
I salute all the Wehrmacht soldiers that disagreed with Hitler
-
The krauts lost the war because they were bastards and no Ruski, Tommy or Yankee would allow such evil to exist in their world.
Millions died to stop them
Soviets were the real evil bastards. Any old guy from Ukraine or Poland can tell you that.
-
[/quote]
Soviets were the real evil bastards. Any old guy from Ukraine or Poland can tell you that.
[/quote]
the soviets were just as or more terryfing as the germans (some of the ss or hitlers "death commandos" who were let of the chain in russia) and to think maybe 6 million jews could have lived if hitler had deported to madagascar like he wanted to.
-
All I need to say is that Germany and Japan got cocky and pissed off the only 2 countries that could defeat them. Germany pissed off Russia and Japan pissed off America.
-
You have to give the Germans credit where credit is due. Two cracks at the world title.
-
I would resume like this:
Germany lost the war because Hitler was GREEEEDY lol, simple;
Why fight in 2 fronts at same time? why did he invaded Russia at that moment? i say excess of confidence man, we tought the germans was sooooo superior that he would win in both fronts; insanity; cant fight americans, british and russians same time, he should fight just americans and england first then after WIN the west front, then, just then went to east to fight russians...
There are about 1000 others reasons but i think this was the major. Overwhelming.
Pessoal Observation; im not Jew, but Thanks God Hitler lost man, im spanish and im not sure how Hitler felt about us ( my family decent from Spanish and Portugueses) lol, maybe after the jews Hitler could aim for us
Personally i hate Nazists more than i dislike the capitalism (not that i like comunism eighter) well what i like then? i dunno... MONARCHY? LOOOOL JK.. ;)
-
A lot of people argue that Germany could have won the war by honoring its pact with the Soviet Union. Germany certainly would have had much greater odds if they hadn't been bogged down on an eastern front; the problem is, I think the conflict with the Soviet Union was inevitable.
1) Capitalist fascism and communism are incompatible ideologies which are inherently offensive to each other.
2) Hitler and Stalin hated each other.
3) Let's be honest... both countries were making plans to attack the other. If Germany hadn't made the first move, the Soviets would have.
So taking that into consideration... how could Germany have won? Easy... unite the capitalist world against the communists.
What did Germany have to fear from France? LOL... was France going to invade? Hell no.
Hitler should have invaded Eastern Europe under the premise of defeating communism. He could have gotten nearly the entire western world on board with that. I feel like the Americans, French and British would have at least helped supply the offensive. Germany would have stood to gain large chunks of Eastern Europe, including parts of Poland, Austria-Hungary and Czechoslovakia. In far eastern Europe they could have installed a puppet dictator much like Stalin did with the communist GDR.
-
In reality, Germany (or the Axis, however you like it) lost the war because, simply, the war occured in the first place.
If you look at Hitler's original pre-war goals, the objective was to create an army and steamroll his enemies in the late 40s, far ahead of the declaration of war by Britain in 1939. In fact, Hitler miscalculated that the Allies would let him off like previously in his takeovers of Eastern European countries. Hitler's pretext for taking Poland was reclaimation of German territoriy (whether lost from WW1 or Lebensraum). Put it simply, Hitler was pushing people around and they pushed back, and Hitler had to walk the walk.
Germany had to throttle its war capability after that, indeed the Blitzkrieg tactics were in reality relatively impromptu tactics by Hitler's generals in order to pull off success, as prolonged conflict was realized as the fatal blow for Germany. Originally, fighting France and Britain were merely secondary concerns for Hitler, because Lebensraum goals were in the East. Germany would fight its old Great War rivals either only when it needs to or in its own terms. Since it was the former, Germany had to take them out less they interfere with taking out Russia.
Once the West was put in order, Hitler accelerated his plans to destroying the Soviet Union, opening a second front before the war with Britain was given closure. His declaration of war on the US is arguably the worst thing he could do in his dire situation; the fact that the Americans were not declaring war over continuously attacking their supply fleets to Britain would be a miracle for someone in Hitler's position, that of precarious economic strain and the only hope for military victory was swift conquest of enemy territories and sudden annihilation of their armies.
Germany had no chance to winning WW2 because it was not the kind of war they wanted to fight. I think its amazing that the Wehrmacht managed to achieve what it did under its circumstances. Unfortunately an impatient and possessive dictator can really ruin the day.
-
Hitler should have invaded Eastern Europe under the premise of defeating communism.
Hiltler tried but poland was in the way and when he tried to get out of the way france and britan attacked
-
That can be one reason Hitler would have made. However Hitler had by the time of the Polish Invasion demanded land concesions, especially that of Danzig and East Prussia, making an aggressive case for invasion. That spurred Britain and France to state that if Germany takes action against Poland, its war with them as well. Hitler ignored the warnings.
ANy pretense of defeating communism would not bear any weight thanks to Hitler's diplomatic decorum. Would you let a large, militarized neighbour march through your lands to fight another enemy on the opposite border?
-
Im getting the vibe that we're trying to answer the question "How the Germans could have won" rather than why they lost. Anyway back to the original question, alot of valid points have been brought up but I'd like to elaborate on a few. The first would be logistics. Germany never had the logistic capability of the United States or the UK, not by a long shot. The blitzkrieg of the Soviet Union is a perfect example of this. To really go into this, you have to understand the history behind the "Blitz."
During the days of Fredrick the Great, Prussia was surrounded by nation states that wanted Prussia gone. These states could afford a long war because they had the production capability and raw resources, Prussia could not and thus Prussian military doctrine evolved into grand, swift maneuvers that sought a quick and decisive victory. This kind of warfare was well suited for continental Europe where nations were essentially shoulder to shoulder and nations such as Prussia could logistically afford quick, sweeping military operations. Blitzkrieg, as it was in WWII, was simply a result of this Prussian way of war. The advent of the tank and aircraft allowed what German military tacticians had always dreamed of and Guderian was able to use this new tools to great effect.
As stated before, this kind of warfare was suited to a kind of war in which distance wasnt an issue. When the Germans invaded Russia, all the flaws of Blitzkrieg were shown in full. The panzers were days ahead of the infantry and the Wehermacht's primary logistic resource, the horse, couldnt keep up. Still, the outstanding successes of 1941 seemed to confirm for German High Command that Russia would capitulate in the estimated time of eight weeks. When winter hit however, supplies slowed to a crawl and in 1942 the Blitzkrieg came to a hault. Weather had a huge impact on the Germans, their supplies couldnt get to the front in the quantity needed, the lines were overstretched and the Soviets had started to learn the lessons of Blitzkrieg.
Anyway, how the Germans FOUGHT was one of the defining factors in their losing the war. There are also a million other reasons; over-confidence; lack of knowledge of the terrain in the east; massive partisan movements in the Balkans; and of course Hitler declaring war on the US. Alot of people seem to say that the war was won in the East but really without the US I doubt that the Soviets could have beat the Germans back with the entire Wehrmacht thrown at them. The US was the hammer and the Soviets the anvil. Anyway, I hope this was coherent enough to shed some light on how the Germans lost as I'm rather tired since its 4AM here.
-
Alot of people seem to say that the war was won in the East but really without the US I doubt that the Soviets could have beat the Germans back with the entire Wehrmacht thrown at them. The US was the hammer and the Soviets the anvil.
It depends. The Germans would still have suffered from troubles during Operation Barbarossa, possibly more if they had used the entire Wehrmacht (more vehicles in Winter = more mud, more shit getting stuck, more people dying from starvation, more people freezing, more disease... we haven't even took bullets into consideration yet).
The Eastern Front would have still become a quagmire stalemate outside Moscow, but HAD the US not intervened and HAD the Germans managed to conquer North Africa, the Germans would now have had the perfect flank to attack the Soviets from the South, possibly cutting off their fuel supply, but they would need to fight for it first.
However, this theatre would have come to a conclusion earlier than irl, with a clear German victory, with copious amounts of fuel, but not yet with the heavy tanks they needed. This would have meant any offensive would either have to have been stalled OR they could have taken their chances and attacked the Soviets anyway to try and wipe out their fuel supples in Caucasus then move up and reinforce the offensive at Stalingrad.
I'm going to stop now because its becoming too speculative.
Its worth remembering that the Soviet Union had over twice the population of the German Reich. The Soviets would utilise both sexes in the Red Army and that gave them a distinct manpower advantage. So even without the US in the way, and even with all their forces focussed on one front, the Germans would have had one HELL of a time trying to overcome the Soviets.