Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

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


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#1 flammpanzer

flammpanzer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 96 posts

Posted 22 December 2008 - 11:49 AM

I was reading today a little about The D-day and the overall succes of operation overlord and some sort of reason came to me as a possible answer of why Germany lost the war. I was thinking about the trust on the commanders of the German army, considering for instance how Einsenhower and Hitler behaved in this aspect during the war. For instance D. always visited his subordinates but never interfered in their decisions , while Rommel was always hand tied by Adolf-idiot and when Grofaz took the command himself in several instances of war, things turned out disastrously for the Germans. So what do you think about it guys?
Communist, Latin American and anti-Imperialist

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

#2 Von Poop

Von Poop

    Waspish

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,351 posts
  • LocationPerfidious Albion

User's Awards

2   

Posted 22 December 2008 - 12:25 PM

I agree that there is one real reason there was a war, and the same reason lost it.
His name's Adolf.
'Treason never prospers', and the bastard committed treason against sanity, good sense, military skill, and humanity, in a manner that thankfully guaranteed his and his regime's destruction.

There's a particularly affecting scene in the Russian film 'Come & See' where the entire war is played out in reverse using a montage of Hitler newsreels, atrocity shots, & family photographs all tracing back to that one little gangster, intercut with the partisan-boy hero shooting a portrait of the man. It'll stay with me forever as a fine allegory of what went wrong in the German state.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Sometimes it just really gets to me... What a f***ing scumbag.

Cheers,
Adam.
  • bigfun likes this
It's only the Internet...

#3 JCFalkenbergIII

JCFalkenbergIII

    Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,479 posts

Posted 22 December 2008 - 12:44 PM

Sorry. But Im going to disagree. Hitler was not the main reason why the Nazi's lost the war. It was a combination of many things. In addition to Hitler himself there were his cronies and sychophants that were in positions of power. Then there were the Marshals and Generals and other officers,and civilians too, who were either in fear of Hitler or were ready and willing to kiss his ass and follow his obscene and and sometimes totally irrational orders. Some were quite willing to go compliantly along even when the facts and logic were totally apparent to them .That they were wrong and that the war was lost. Some times it seems real easy to put the blame totally on Hitler. And I am in no way defending that madman BTW. But there has to be some responsibility for the other's actions and thier effect on the war also. That is like putting to total blame about how the Luftwaffe operated during the war on Goering.
  • Za Rodinu likes this
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

#4 Triple C

Triple C

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,543 posts

Posted 22 December 2008 - 12:59 PM

Well, Nazi Germany elected to fight a total war with the two largest industrial economies in the world. The Germans were inferior in every respect, except the army in the field that was subject to attrition. Given Hitler's legion of foibles, Germany was still fighting enemies with deep, deep pockets of industrial output, manpower and potential.

#5 T. A. Gardner

T. A. Gardner

    Genuine Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,855 posts

Posted 22 December 2008 - 01:12 PM

In a sentence: The German military had good leadership, poor managment, and really pathethic strategic vision.

#6 Miguel B.

Miguel B.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 956 posts

Posted 22 December 2008 - 03:15 PM

I also blame Hitler as in, if Hitler didn't exist, WWII wouldn't happen.
So, Hitler was guilty of making Germany loosing the war.


Cheers...
Battles don't win wars, Logistics do!

#7 bigfun

bigfun

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,837 posts

Posted 22 December 2008 - 03:19 PM

VP, I could not agree more!
Scott :flag_USA_ww2: :flag_netherlands:

#8 Von Poop

Von Poop

    Waspish

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,351 posts
  • LocationPerfidious Albion

User's Awards

2   

Posted 22 December 2008 - 03:42 PM

50-70 million dead lie at his feet.
He was the great facilitator; not the only one by any means, naturally other bastards rose to the fore, but definitely the idiot with the key to Pandora's box who chose to wield it.

I suspect no matter how much there is left to learn I will remain convinced that all the other factors; military, political, civil, social, international, etc. are a shadow of his own Genius for stupidity & immense hubris.

I apologise for the ranty tone, and appreciate that it's largely preaching to the converted on a pretty sensible forum, nobody needs to underline that Adolf isn't nice... but you know how sometimes that face just gets to you?

Posted Image


Cheers,
Adam.

Hmmm... perhaps I should lay off the 'atrocity reading pile' for a while... :rolleyes::D
It's only the Internet...

#9 PzJgr

PzJgr

    Drill Instructor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,085 posts
  • LocationJefferson, OH

User's Awards

2   

Posted 22 December 2008 - 04:00 PM

I would also put the blame on Hitler. It was he who insisted on beginning the war way before the Wehrmacht was ready. Everything else stems from that very decision. Yes, he may have had successes early on but that does not mean much when the target countries were not proportionally armed. His decision to go to war in 39' when his commanders were looking at 43' is where the problem lies.
Stug2.jpg

 


#10 bigfun

bigfun

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,837 posts

Posted 22 December 2008 - 04:25 PM

..... Yes, he may have had successes early on but that does not mean much when the target countries were not proportionally armed.


Like The Netherlands, which is smaller than the state of Illinois!! Yeah, big victory! What a nut job Hitler was!
Scott :flag_USA_ww2: :flag_netherlands:

#11 PzJgr

PzJgr

    Drill Instructor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,085 posts
  • LocationJefferson, OH

User's Awards

2   

Posted 22 December 2008 - 04:48 PM

Like The Netherlands, which is smaller than the state of Illinois!! Yeah, big victory! What a nut job Hitler was!


Yes. Of all the countries Hitler invaded (or attempted to), only 3 were equal enough military wise. The UK, France and the USSR. Everyone else feel to Hitler because he did invade them pretty much one at a time with the exception of the low and scandanavian countries.
Stug2.jpg

 


#12 flammpanzer

flammpanzer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 96 posts

Posted 22 December 2008 - 04:57 PM

But the reason of why i hate Hitler more is that because of his fault the werhmatch is considered by man commoners as a genocidal machine rather than a group fighting for its country.
Communist, Latin American and anti-Imperialist

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

#13 AmonMauser

AmonMauser

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 108 posts

Posted 22 December 2008 - 05:07 PM

But the reason of why i hate Hitler more is that because of his fault the werhmatch is considered by man commoners as a genocidal machine rather than a group fighting for its country.


no, those people who think that are uneducated.
Posted Image

#14 bigfun

bigfun

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,837 posts

Posted 22 December 2008 - 05:17 PM

But the reason of why i hate Hitler more is that because of his fault the werhmatch is considered by man commoners as a genocidal machine rather than a group fighting for its country.


Really!? You must be talking to the wrong people. Maybe you need to educate them, just an idea! They may be ignorant of what the Wehrmacht actually was. Please take the time to educate them.
Scott :flag_USA_ww2: :flag_netherlands:

#15 JCFalkenbergIII

JCFalkenbergIII

    Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,479 posts

Posted 22 December 2008 - 06:51 PM

"Fighting for thier country". A interesting phrase isn't it? Usually used to imply that they were defending thier country from outside enemies. The Heer and Waffen SS really didn't start to do that till 1944 when Allied forces entered Germany.. The Luftwaffe and Flak units started when Germany started to be bombed by the Allies. The fighting by the Heer and Waffen SS had been in all the countries and areas that they had attacked conquered and occupied until then. And the German military under the Nazis were the aggressors every time. How were they "defending" Germany against Poland,France,Holland,Norway and all the other countries that were not a threat to them? BTW I think most people consider the SS as the "genocidal machine" more then the Wehrmacht in general or the Heer.

Edited by JCFalkenbergIII, 23 December 2008 - 08:14 PM.

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

#16 marc780

marc780

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 585 posts

Posted 22 December 2008 - 07:46 PM

I would also put the blame on Hitler. It was he who insisted on beginning the war way before the Wehrmacht was ready. Everything else stems from that very decision. Yes, he may have had successes early on but that does not mean much when the target countries were not proportionally armed. His decision to go to war in 39' when his commanders were looking at 43' is where the problem lies.

bingo. There were i think 3 really critical reasons why they lost, 2 reasons because of Hitler and the #1 reason why there was no way they could win!

1. Development of the atomic bomb. Whoever came up with it first, would probably win the war. The USA was first to develop it. Thank goodness. This was indeed the "royal flush" of weaponry and trumped every other weapon in existence. It's a good thing the Germans surrendered when they did because the allies were going to use the a-bomb on them first to make them surrender. But the bomb was not ready until after VE day.
2. Operation Barbarossa. This invasion was Hitler's alone, almost every Field Marshall and everyone else in his circle tried to convince him not to order it, even Herman Goerring. But Hitler was convinced that the two systems (fascism and communism) could never co-exist for long (he was right on that) and that Stalin was only biding his time until he was ready to attack Germany (right again). In my opinion until 1942 the Germans did have a real chance for victory in the east. If Hitler had selected a professional chief of staff (instead of himself) as overall commander and let the excellent German OKW run the campaign- instead of meddling from the sidelines in the most amateurish way possible, the Wehrmacht might well have conquered Russia.
3. Hitler declared war on the USA after Pearl Harbor in 1941. This was a mistake because there was little reason for him to do so as ultimately, there was not much benefit in the alliance to either Germany or Japan. He thought it showed solidarity with the Japanese. But all it did was legitamize American efforts against Germany who then became the "main enemy" instead of Japan.

#17 Za Rodinu

Za Rodinu

    Aquila non capit muscas

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,809 posts
  • LocationPortugal

Posted 22 December 2008 - 10:11 PM

[quote name='flammpanzer']But the reason of why i hate Hitler more is that because of his fault the werhmatch is considered by man commoners as a genocidal machine rather than a group fighting for its country.[/quote]

That is bullshit. The Wehrmacht (please note the spelling and the initial capital) was not deemed to be a criminal organization.

[QUOTE]The six criminal organizations were as follows: Hitler's Cabinet, the leadership corps of the NAZI party, the SS and the SD, the Gestapo, and the SA and the General Staff and High Command of the army.[/QUOTE]

Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra...


#18 brndirt1

brndirt1

    Saddle Tramp

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,709 posts

Posted 22 December 2008 - 10:49 PM

But the reason of why i hate Hitler more is that because of his fault the werhmatch is considered by man commoners as a genocidal machine rather than a group fighting for its country.


And let’s not forget that the Wehrmacht (note spelling as pointed out by Za) was only formed on October 15th 1935, and is a generic term meaning "Defense Power" or something similar in German. This name would and should really be used to describe the combined forces of the Army (Heer), Navy (Kreigsmarine), and Air Force (Luftwaffe), not simply the "ground pounding" soldiers.

This combined grouping was overseen by the OKW (Oberkommando Wehrmacht), and each branch also had its own Oberkommando, i.e. OKM, OKL, and OKH. Adolf Hitler was in overall command of the German armed forces through OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht), which means it was he who was in Supreme Command of the Armed Forces.

The others, like OKH (Oberkommando des Heeres, Supreme Command of the Army), was headed by the General Staff, with various Generals holding the post over the Hitler years; OKM (Oberkommando der Marine, Supreme Command of the Navy), was headed at the beginning of the war by Admiral Raeder and later by Admiral Doenitz; and OKL (Oberkommando der Luftwaffe, Supreme Command of the Air Force) which was headed all through the war by Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering. But all were subservient to the OKW leader, Hitler. All in all a muddled system, but no worse (other than Hitler at its head) than any other command and control structure of the time-frame.

And as pointed out by Za, neither it (Wehrmacht), nor the Heer, nor the Kreigsmarine, nor the Luftwaffe were listed as criminal organizations let alone "genocidal machines".
Happy Trails,
Clint.

#19 T. A. Gardner

T. A. Gardner

    Genuine Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,855 posts

Posted 23 December 2008 - 12:09 AM

To expand on my earlier, and sparse but concise, commentary:

Good leadership: The German Heer had for most of the war good to excellent field generals and officers. These men were very capable tactically and operationally at winning battles. They are the reason the Germans got as far as they did to begin with.

But, the bad news is:

The Germans were managerially inept. Industry was never properly orgainized and focused on the war. Albert Speer for all his efforts made really little in road into fixing any of these problems.
At no time did the Nazi party or military ever have anything close to a unified industrial policy. Each service pretty much did its own thing irrespective of the others. The technical and planning services were staffed primarily by field officers with little or no industrial or technical background. But, they were given nearly free hand to meddle with production. This is one major reason for the plethora of different models of virtually everything the Germans produced.
The Schell-Programm of 1939 is a perfect example. This program was intended to rationalize military vehicle production. It did reduce the number of standard vehicles to something around 100 different trucks and cars and about 100 different motorcycles but, as anyone can conclude really did little to reduce what was mass confusion.
Compare that with the US where each truck class the military used had just one (1!) design. Every manufacturer had to comply with that design less some cosmetic differences.
When you add the politics of preference for certain manufacturers to deliver certain weapons (something Speer did nothing to change either) this stupidity is multiplied.

The Military also did not appreciate the usefulness of engineering services in the field. There was little planning, little mechanization and, less material support. Does anyone think for a second that if the US invaded Russia they wouldn't have known about the varying rail gauges and planned for it? Or, the need to cross wide rivers and bridging? One US engineer battalion in late 1944 bridged the (by German thinking) nearly impossible to bridge Rhine River three times in less than two days!

In strategic vision, the Germans also were inept. Starting with the Kriegsmarine, there was no real plan for a war with England that realistically allowed them to do anything. Yes, the KM knew that a U-boat campaign would be necessary but the inflexibility and inability to adapt crushed it in the end.
The building of a capital ship navy that could never match its opponets was just a waste of materials.
Then there is the Luftwaffe. They didn't plan anything with realistic regard for their potential opponets. The Luftwaffe knew the Russians and British were on the list. Yet their fighter was a short range interceptor rather than a long range offensive fighter. The Me 110 originally thought to fill the later role was a failure and the Luftwaffe had no back up plan in place for it.
Henkel and Henschel were marginalized as manufacturers on the basis of politics and distaste for their management by the top brass. There was too much emphsis on highly technically advanced aircraft by the technical departments of the Luftwaffe that led to most of the early war new designs being abject failures. The Luftwaffe also regularly ordered massive (10 to 20) numbers of unproved prototypes that often failed in service but were then pressed into operational use regardless.
The Luftwaffe showed no real skill at target planning. Simply bombing southern England almost at random is not a plan. Switching targetting priorities virtually daily is also just naive. Their inability to think ahead and foresee what the enemy might do led to the initial failures in nightfighting and then in technical development in many areas.
In Russia the Luftwaffe proved no better. It simply squandered resources on immediate goals rather than ever coming up with some coherent plan to support the military in general or German strategic goals.
The Heer is equally guilty. Their planning for most campaigns dealt with only the immediate strategic and operational goals. Russia and North Africa show this most clearly. In North Africa why did Germany get involved at all? There was never enough material or units to win there regardless of how well Rommel might be doing operationally. The strategic goals were never even set for this theater. It was a sideshow that shouldn't have happened.
Russia was the same way. When the Germans didn't win immediately they cast about for a new strategy without any real vision.
Then there is Hitler. He meddles continiously with strategic goals. By mid war he is meddling operationally and even tactically with what is going on at the front.

It was an inept system of leadership and management.
  • dead_celeb likes this

#20 flammpanzer

flammpanzer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 96 posts

Posted 23 December 2008 - 12:45 AM

"Fighting for thier country". A interesting phrase isn't it? Usually used to imply that they were defending thier country from outside enemies. The Heer and Waffen SS really didn't start to do that till 1944. The Luftwaffe and Flak units when Germany started to be bombed by the Allies. The fighting by the Heer and Waffen SS had been in all the countries and areas that they had attacked conquered and occupied until then. And the German military under the Nazis were the aggressors every time. How were they "defending" Germany against Poland,France,Holland,Norway and all the other countries that were not a threat to them? BTW I think most people consider the SS as the "genocidal machine" more then the Wehrmacht in general or the Heer.



Well that fighting for their county **** is used by many imperialist countries, look at the states now, fighting to defend its own borders right in the middle east.
Communist, Latin American and anti-Imperialist

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

#21 zaespino

zaespino

    recruit

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 23 December 2008 - 08:05 PM

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

Regards

#22 JCFalkenbergIII

JCFalkenbergIII

    Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,479 posts

Posted 23 December 2008 - 08:18 PM

It was an inept system of leadership and management.


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

For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

#23 Von Poop

Von Poop

    Waspish

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,351 posts
  • LocationPerfidious Albion

User's Awards

2   

Posted 23 December 2008 - 09:02 PM

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

Hitler.

Cheers,
Adam.
It's only the Internet...

#24 urqh

urqh

    Tea drinking surrender monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,681 posts

Posted 23 December 2008 - 09:23 PM


I apologise for the ranty tone, and appreciate that it's largely preaching to the converted on a pretty sensible forum, nobody needs to underline that Adolf isn't nice... but you know how sometimes that face just gets to you?


Cheers,
Adam.

Hmmm... perhaps I should lay off the 'atrocity reading pile' for a while... :rolleyes::D


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

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

Bless em all.
  • Von Poop likes this

British Army 1939-1945 - World War II Tribute Video

 

 

[URL="http://youtu.be/Zbp_4XBmD4w"]

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 


#25 TiredOldSoldier

TiredOldSoldier

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,836 posts

Posted 23 December 2008 - 10:04 PM

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




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users