And here’s the version from Prange, which agrees on the essential points:
Armored Sleeve.jpg
Why Germany lost WWII
-
@Herr:
I think Germany lost the war because of Hitler.
That’s a far better conclusion, and far more open to debate… there are certainly many blunders that cost Germany dearly that lay at his feet. Do note that there are things Hitler did that were good that wouldn’t have happened without him (Not to say Hitler was a good guy, totally evil crazy man, but even crazy evil guys can make good decisions from time to time). One such example was the invasion plans for France, which the OKW wanted to go with the oh-so-predictable main punch through Belgium into Northern France, which the British and French based all their plans on… the Ardennes advance through the forest and Sedan was something that only happened because Hitler backed the plan against OKW advice. Some of the “stand to the last man” orders actually turned out well (while most, of course, turned out bad)… you have to mix the good decisions with the bad, but yes, in the end, he probably hurt more militarily than he helped, but that’s where the “debate” part comes-in.
In the end, you can’t tell what would happen if you changed things around… Remove Hitler from the picture, and someone else would be there… how would they have been? Better, worse? You never know. The Treaty of Versailles created Hitler… or at least a mindset where someone like Hitler would come to power… if not Hitler, who else?
-
I posted this in the hopes that someone else would throw something else at me I that never considered. Looks like this thread is about why one theory is wrong.
It’s not just about whether or not GHG’s theory is wrong; it’s also about the larger question of whether any single change to the course of WWII could have turned an Axis defeat into an Axis victory. For “a single change” to have a practical meaning, it has to be something that’s specific, and that’s under the control of the historical decision-makers of the time, and that they could have plausibly changed. It can’t be something that’s so broad and vague that it’s meaningless. It can’t be something that’s technically impossible (“If Hannibal had had atomic weapons rather than elephants, Cathage would have defeated Rome”). And it can’t be something that’s fundamentally out of character (“If the Nazis had been nice people…”) because in such a case we’d be talking about completely imaginary individuals, not about historical characters. Frankly, if the Nazis had been nice people, the effect would not have been that they would have won WWII; the effect would have been that the war would never have happened in the first place.
If I understand correctly what you mean by “I posted this in the hopes that someone else would throw something else at me I that never considered”, I think you mean that you were hoping that somebody would propose an “If Hitler had done X rather than Y, he would have won the war” theory which you haven’t previously encountered. I also assume, however, that you’re talking about a credible, plausible theory. If that’s the case, the reason that no such theory has been posted so far on this thread is that – as I’ve argued in earlier posts – there may not be any such single-factor theory that holds water.
GHG has said previously that “None of us can prove or disprove any theories on this topic. We can only offer our opinions.” That’s perfectly true on one level, but it also recognizes the fact that such theories can only rest on argumentation rather than on experimentation. Given that fact, the degree to which a theory will sound convincing or not will depend on the strength of the argumentation behind it. A theory which is clearly and logically argued, which covers all the possible angles, which anticipates and refutes satisfactorily the possible counter-arguments, and which is backed up by solid historical evidence, has the best chance of being convincing in such cases.
-
FOWHEAD
You looking for something like this ? Hitler should of listen to his Generals ? Or instead of going south for the oil he should of just kept going towards Moscow ?
Maybe it was the food blockade that Churchill, FDR and other allies caused Germany to lose the war ? :-D :-D :-D For you IL !
-
@CWO:
GHG has said previously that "None of us can prove or disprove any theories on this topic. We can only offer our opinions."Â That’s perfectly true on one level, but it also recognizes the fact that such theories can only rest on argumentation rather than on experimentation.
Ya, I kinda have issues with blanket statements… some things can be proven (more or less) and some things can be disproven (more or less).
If Germany had developed the atomic bomb in 1941, they would have won the war… yeah, can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but I’d say that’s more than likely a given.
If Germany decided to train and arm all the women in Germany over the age of 16 in March 1945 to fight at the front, Germany could have won the war… no… at some point I think you’d have to say no… but I can’t prove it concretely as false.
My whole point about debunking the Holocaust as a major reason why Germany lost the war was based on some solid arguments with points and counterpoints… the reality is, the diversion of resources and manpower to the Holocaust really didn’t impact anything until the war had already been lost (along the lines of arming Germany’s women too late)… at some point in the war, the war was lost for Germany, short of a super major impactor to turn it around… and the slight uptick of manpower and resources after 1943 that ceasing the Holocaust would have caused just wouldn’t have been enough to save Germany from losing the war. For Germany to end the war successfully after 1943 would have taken some major changes on the battlefields or some massive change in technology… a cessation of the Holocaust just wouldn’t have given Germany the amount of change that would have been required to win the war, and there’s a ton of evidence to back that up.
As for the X-to-Y-to-Z leads to a German victory… I actually did mention that in this thread with Dunkirk, BoB and Barbarossa (that nobody commented on)… all three of those could have gone differently with some minor corrections here and there which could have turned history around and handed Germany a victory… certainly not a certified beyond a doubt undebateable matter… but I also think they could have realistically gone a different way and would have had a major impact on how the war turned out.
As for SS… straight to Moscow instead of the Panzer merry go round that cost Germany Barbarossa was something I hinted on (and debated in detail in previous older threads)… and of course there’s that darn allied food embargo! :roll:
-
@SS:
FOWHEAD
      You looking for something like this ? Hitler should of listen to his Generals ? Or instead of going south for the oil he should of just kept going towards Moscow ?
      Maybe it was the food blockade that Churchill, FDR and other allies caused Germany to lose the war ?  :-D :-D :-D  For you IL !
yes stuff like this. do you think if they went straight for and taken Moscow Russia would have caved in?
-
Here is a different take that resonates for me:
I have seen it argued that both Germany and Japan* were strategically weak. Both lacked natural resources and needed access to those from elsewhere to maintain their war machines.
In the case of Japan that required secure supply lines from the East Indies, which their naval losses and strategic myopia denied them.
Germany needed to conquer territories that would secure those resources.
By contrast the allies were resource rich. Command of the seas gave access to resources from across the globe. Japan challenged US command of the Pacific for only a very short time frame. German U Boats did cause the Allies difficulties in the Atlantic for a longer period of course, but denying global resources to the UK is not the same as denying them to the USA, let alone gaining them for Germany.
Axis supremacy needed victory after victory in the face superior Allied production and manpower. The Allies only needed to deny them a sufficient proportion of those victories.
Of course, those that faced the Axis onslaught did not perceive any such “inevitable” Allied victory. And for a time those victories did keep coming …
*I include Japan in this answer because one of the reasons why Germany lost WW2 is that Japan never diverted enough allied resources away from the European theatre.
-
By the way, on the subject of historical counterfactuals (and of Hannibal and Rome), here’s a Soviet-era joke. Soviet scientists develop a historical reincarnation technique, and as its first application they reincarnate three great military leaders: Hannibal, Julius Caesar and Napoleon. To celebrate this triumph of Soviet science, the Kremlin stages a huge military parade in Red Square, with the three reincarnated leaders present on the reviewing stand as guests of honor (and provided with interpreters at their side). As a Soviet tank formation drives past the reviewing stand, Hannibal exclaims, “Why, if I’d had those tanks instead of my elephants, I would have conquered Rome!” Next, when a Red Army infantry unit marches past the reviewing stand, Caesar exclaims, “Why, if I’d had those soldiers instead of my legionaries, I would have conquered the world!” Napoleon, meanwhile, is ignoring the parade and is instead (with the help of his interpreter) studying a copy a Pravda; he exclaims, “Why, if I’d had this newspaper, nobody would ever have heard about Waterloo!”
-
I enjoyed the above two posts… nothing further to add… :wink:
-
@SS:
FOWHEAD
� � � � � � You looking for something like this ?� Hitler should of listen to his Generals ? Or instead of going south for the oil he should of just kept going towards Moscow ?
� � � � � � Maybe it was the food blockade that Churchill, FDR and other allies caused� Germany to lose the war ?� � :-D :-D :-D� � For you IL !
yes stuff like this. do you think if they went straight for and taken Moscow Russia would have caved in?
Don’t know. Thats why CWO GHG were stating there isn’t anyway to know really.
Outside of theory’s maybe CWO may have something to say on that. I think I read something to the affect Russia had to many people and would take it back because Germany would have to send supplies all that way and Russia blew up all there factory’s.
-
@CWO:
By the way, on the subject of historical counterfactuals (and of Hannibal and Rome), here’s a Soviet-era joke. Soviet scientists develop a historical reincarnation technique, and as its first application they reincarnate three great military leaders: Hannibal, Julius Caesar and Napoleon. To celebrate this triumph of Soviet science, the Kremlin stages a huge military parade in Red Square, with the three reincarnated leaders present on the reviewing stand as guests of honor (and provided with interpreters at their side). As a Soviet tank formation drives past the reviewing stand, Hannibal exclaims, “Why, if I’d had those tanks instead of my elephants, I would have conquered Rome!” Next, when a Red Army infantry unit marches past the reviewing stand, Caesar exclaims, “Why, if I’d had those soldiers instead of my legionaries, I would have conquered the world!” Napoleon, meanwhile, is ignoring the parade and is instead (with the help of his interpreter) studying a copy a Pravda; he exclaims, “Why, if I’d had this newspaper, nobody would ever have heard about Waterloo!”
ROFLMHO :-D :-D :-D
-
If they would have put an aircraft carrier and 2 transports in sz 112 in 1939 then the UK wouldn’t have built that major IC on Egypt in 1940. :wink:
The reason I believe what I do has more to do with a loss of intellectual capacity than a loss of a few able-bodied conscripts that you could hand a gun. The holocaust didn’t happen overnight near the end of WW 2, it happened over a period of decades. Prior to that many of the Jews were prominent members of German society in leadership roles. One example of that was Albert Einstein. He was visiting the United States when Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933 and�being Jewish�did not go back to Germany, where he had been a professor at the Berlin Academy of Sciences. He was not in favour of building a weapon out of his theories and did not take part in the Manhattan Project, however his emigration to America added to their intellectual capacity at the expense of Germany’s. Multiply that by tens of thousands with other mass emigration and outright murder and you can begin to equate that to a loss that would eventually make a substantial difference over the next decade. It’s not just their departure, it’s also what they aren’t able to pass on to others in the form of knowledge that would contribute to Germany’s demise.
Really though, this was only part of my answer. Again I say that my answer was actually that they lost because Hitler was nuts and I stand by that.
-
@SS:
Outside of theory’s maybe CWO may have something to say on that. I think I read something to the affect Russia had to many people and would take it back because Germany would have to send supplies all that way and Russia blew up all there factory’s.
Would the USSR have been defeated if Germany had headed straight for Moscow and captured it during the opening months of Barbarossa? It’s an interesting question with complicated (and debatable) possible answers, but I’d be inclined to say “not necessarily.” And if I had to choose between “yes, of course” and “no, never,” I’d tilt towards the no side by saying “probably not, and definitely not right away.” To me, the outcome would hinge on what the practical role of Moscow, as a capital, had in 1941. Symbolism counts too, of course, but practicality counts more.
Let’s start by looking at an analogy. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Germany in 1941 had launched a trans-oceanic amphibious invasion of the United States. Yes, I know that’s ridiculous, but this is just for the purpose of making the following point. Let’s say that this operation had been successful and that Germany had managed to capture and occupy Washington D.C., plus – for good measure – New York City and the entire eastern seaboard of the United States. That’s the loss of the national capital, plus the biggest city, plus an awful lot of real estate and people and economic infrastructure. Question: would the Americans have surrendered under the circumstances? Conservative answer: I don’t think so. More probable answer: No way in hell.
I haven’t bothered to do the calculations, but just from a rough look at a map I’d estimate that the losses I’ve described amount to roughly 20% of the surface area of the contiguous states, which means that the Americans would still be in control of 80% of their territory in this scenario. That 80% includes a lot of territory with substantial population, industrial infrastructure and agricultural land, so the Americans living in the unoccupied part of the country would have had considerable resources at their disposal to continue prosecuting the war. And given how motivated the US population became (in actual history) after Pearl Harbor to win the war at all costs, can you imagine how motivated they would have been if one-fifth of the country itself had ended up under Nazi occupation?
The above scenario, as I’ve said, is pure fantasy, but my point was to argue that the loss of a capital does not in and of itself mean that a country at war will fold. You have to look at other factors, including the size of the country. (France, it should be noted, is smaller than Texas, so the German conquest of France in June 1940 is not geographically analogous to Barbarossa and doesn’t allow any conclusions to be drawn about the effects of the loss of a capital.)
I’m not familiar enough with the details of what the Soviet Union’s economic infrastructure was like in the second half of 1941 to be able to estimate if, in purely physical terms, the USSR could have survived the loss of Moscow. Barbarossa resulted in the loss of the western part of the country, including Leningrad and the Ukraine, which accounts for a lot of industry and a lot of agriculture. It should be noted, however, that Russia did end up winning the war anyway, despite those losses, so the question becomes whether Moscow in and of itself provided anything in material (not symbolic) terms which made a decisive difference. I’ve heard, for instance, that Moscow was supposedly a major railway hub, and that its loss would have paralyzed much of the Soviet railway system. If that’s true (and I don’t know if it is), that would be an example of a genuine and major material factor which is tied to a specific city. Administrative offices, on the other hand, can be moved more easily than factories: basically, it involves moving people and filing cabinets, and setting up new telephone lines and other means of communication. As I recall, part of the Soviet government was already moving out of Moscow (to Kuybyshev?) as the Germans got closer to Moscow, and no doubt the rest of it would have evacuated if the Wehrmacht hadn’t run out of steam before reaching the Kremlin.
That’s the material side of the question. Politically, would the loss of Moscow have convinced the Russians to surrender? Hard to say. In part, the question has to be rephrased as “would the loss of Moscow have convinced Stalin to surrender?” and I’m not going to venture a guess on that one. Another angle to consider is: would the loss of Moscow have triggered the overthrow of Stalin’s regime? That’s an even trickier one: totalitarian dictatorships live (at least in theory) under the perpetual threat of a revolt by the oppressed segments of the population…but by the same token, they tend to have a vast and ruthless apparatus of repression in place to discourage such revolts. And in the case we’re discussing, the prospect of Stalinist terror being replaced by Nazi terror wasn’t exactly a scenario that was considered to be a change for the better by the average Russian.
So all in all, I think that if Moscow had fallen the Russians: 1) would have definitely kept fighting in the short term, at the very least; 2) could probably have kept the war going indefinitely, at least as a stalemate; and 3) might still have ended up winning in the long run.
-
CWO as always thank you.
-
The reason I believe what I do has more to do with a loss of intellectual capacity than a loss of a few able-bodied conscripts that you could hand a gun.
Though keep in mind that intellectual capacity – Jewish or non-Jewish – wasn’t exactly something which was valued by the Nazi regime. In fact, the Nazis were anti-intellectual, both on a theoretical and practical level: they burned books and they threw intellectuals in jail. Hitler’s circle was to a large degree populated by thugs like Ernst Rohm, and the only “intellectuals” who, as far as I know, navigated in the upper circles of his regime were racist ideologues like Alfred Rosenberg. And Joseph Gobbels, who was proud of his Ph.D. and insisted on being called Doctor Goebbels.
-
As Marc said, its almost impossible for another European country to conquer Russia. That said, the goal of Hitler was to capture the European part of Russia to the AA line, known as Arkhangelsk Aztrakan line, and defend that new border long enough to make it part of Germany. If they did that, Germany would not lose the war. Maybe not win it neither, but it would probably be a century long stalemate between the sea powers US and UK, and the remaining Russian empire.
So how to do it. The racist policy would work well in the start, it was a divide and rule strategy that strengthened the national morale, but in the long run it would be difficult to maintain any foreign relations, and it would also be difficult to absorb the conquered people into the Reich, since they were not ethnical correct. Could go either way.
Hitlers first real mistake was to choose bad allies. He skipped the treaty with China, who had delivered vital resources for a long time, and became friends with Chinas enemy, emperor Hirohito. This was the biggest mistake. Japan could not deliver any resources to Germany, they did not answer Hitlers call to attack Russia, and they made USA join the war before Germany was ready. If Hitler had not allied Japan, and just grabbed western Russia, then USA may never have joined the war.
Hitlers second mistake was to be friends with Mussolini. He really ruined Hitlers master plan. Mussolini attacked France, Egypt, Greece and never bothered to tell Hitler about it, giving Hitler a lot of surprises and trouble, ruining the planned summer attack on Russia. But the worst part was, Mussolini was broke so Hitler had to send him lots of oil and resources, and aircrafts, things that could have been better used in the German war effort. Italy drained Germany dry.
Next mistake was when he backstabbed the Chamberlain collusion, and allied Stalin. After that point, it was just a matter of time, and 5 years later Germany was ruined
-
I’ve written in detail about the capture of Moscow previously on this board, detailing how, when and what it would mean… also, in my scenario, I’ve never mentioned or suggested a “Napoleon-like” drive straight to Moscow, ignoring all else… the Germans could have seized Moscow with Barbarossa as it was historically with the three-pronged attack led by Army Groups North, South and Center. My main focus that screwed the entire timetable of Barbarossa up (as it was historically) was the diversion of AG Center’s panzers from center, south to Kiev, then back north again to center to resume the drive to Moscow…
This very unnecessary diversion cost AG Center weeks (if not longer) during a time the Russian resistance in front of them (and by nature inbetween them and Moscow) was in complete disarray and completely not prepared for continued assaults… also, the defences of Moscow itself were not prepared at this time… the weeks of delays the rerouting of AG Centers panzers to Kiev in the south and back again to center gave the Russians time to catch their breath, bring up reinforcements, dig in between Smolensk and Moscow, prepare Moscow for defense itself, and of course, brought Mother Winter into play, which wouldn’t have been there had the Germans pressed on in center weeks earlier.
Also, Russia and Moscow cannot be compared to the continental US in terms of geographic impact. Population distribution, production distribution, railhead distribution, communication distribution, agricultural distribution… all of this is VASTLY different in Russia than the US, it’s a true apples to oranges comparison. The Germans by and large had overran most of Russia’s agricultural belt in the Ukraine and southern Russia… most of Russia’s production plants were in western Russia, not the east, and while they were relocating them further east, they were not up and running during Barbarossa in any large scale… communication and rail hubs pretty much ALL ran through Moscow… and most importantly… Stalin was in Moscow, and while any sane man would leave before the Germans conquered the city, I have given much evidence (though debatable) that Stalin would have a “Hitler bunker mentality” and not leave the city anymore than Hitler refused to leave Berlin when the options were definitely there for Hitler, he never left, and neither did Stalin.
Given the loss of so much arable land in the Ukraine (which would have occurred simultaneously with a capture of Moscow), the loss of so much production facilities, rail heads, communication lines and the “cutting the head off the best in Moscow”… in a Totalitarian state, ripe for revolution, with (arguably, my scenario with a Stalin refusing to leave), there is every bit of believability that Barbarossa, sans the pointless weeks wasted diverting panzers from south back to north and delaying the drive to Moscow at the very time she was most vulnerable, with a bunker mentality paranoid Stalin, I think there’s a ton of evidence that this could have, and very likely would have forced Russia out of the war in 1941 or early 1942.
I think people’s main hangup is this idea that somehow any one nation is completely invincible… that a country cannot be defeated, and just accepting that notion as fact, is a folly premise… no nation is invincible, and given the right conditions, yes, Russia too can be taken out (a lot of people forget Russia lost WWI to Germany, yet some people always forget this and think Hitler was Napoleon instead of Wilhelm).
I don’t care to go over all the details I’ve mentioned in the past posts, I’m not even sure where they are, but simply put, anyone thinking Russia is invincible should just buy a ticket for the HMS Titanic… promises of invincibility are often proven wrong.
-
Thank you wolf for that reply. Yes what if the panzers didn’t go south and then back north.
8 miles away from Moscow and I’d kept pushing.There you go Fowhead. You got some different opinions and that’s what they all are.
-
the myth says it was Valentina Istomina, a young girl that Stalin used to keep his house clean, that made him stay. The German Tanks were closing in on Moscow and the generals asked Stalin if they should stay or run. Stalin asked Valentina, and she said Moscow is our mother and home, we must defend her. None of the generals wanted to look more cowardly than the maid, so they all stayed. Me, I just think it was a myth, or urban legend. The major difference between Berlin 1945 and Moscow 1941 was, Hitler had no place to run, and no place to hide. yes, he could have escaped Berlin and live one more week. His choice were a bullet in Berlin today or hang from a gallows in Nurenberg next week. Stalin on the other hand could have stayed in Moscow, and if the German attack succeeded, burned it down like they did during the last visit of Napoleon, or burn it down before the Germans come and keep on fighting from the Urals
-
The thing of the matter is nobody knows for sure what would have happened to Stalin if the Germans actually seized Moscow.
- He could have stayed in bunker mentality and gone-down with the city
- He could have fled elsewhere to fight another day
- He might have tried to flee, but either killed by German attacks/bombs/artillery or been captured and killed like Mussolini and his mistress at the hands of his own countrymen who hated him.
We don’t know, we can only speculate… the only thing we DO KNOW for a fact, is that the Germans were in binocular distance of the Kremlin and despite his fellow countrymen and generals begging him to leave, he stayed… Dictators going down with their capitals isn’t exactly a new thing… I’m of the mindset Stalin showed his hand when the Germans were knocking on the gates of Moscow… I can’t prove he would have stayed any more than someone can prove he would have left scott-free… but it is debatable, and I use that premise to support some of my conclusions of what could have happened at the conclusion of an alternate timeline Barbarossa campaign.
-
It’s certainly possible that Stalin might have decided to stay in Moscow if the city had been about to fall to the Germans. As you say, there’s no way of knowing what he would or would not have done if that had been the situation. It should be remembered, however, that this wasn’t the situation. The German troops who got to within binocular range of the Kremlin – I’ve seen an interview with one of them, who wistfully recalled that this was the first and only time he ever saw Moscow – were a forward element of a frozen army that was grinding to a halt in the rigors of the Russian winter. By contrast, Hitler in April 1945 was being confronted with a wall of Soviet army groups advancing towards Berlin in springtime weather, and who eventually surrounded his capital. By this time, moreover, Hitler was being forced to admit that the war was already lost, so he had nothing to lose by staying in Berlin. (It helped his bruised ego that he was able to throw the blame on – in his opinion – his cowardly and incompetent generals, and on the failure of the German people to live up to their destiny.)
Another point to keep in mind is that, regardless of what Stalin might have done if Moscow had been about to fall, he gave a huge boost to the Soviet war effort by staying in Moscow as the Germans were advancing towards the city. I’ve seen another interview with a Soviet officer who recalls that Soviet soldiers were surprised and impressed and greatly encouraged when they personally saw that Stalin “is here” in Moscow (he gave a speech from a balcony), because they had assumed that he had lost his nerve and that he had run away. Staying in Moscow at the time was the correct thing to do, and he did it. If circumstances had changed and Moscow was being surrounded, would he have decided that the correct thing to do was withdraw from the city in order to continue leading the fight, or would he have resolved to stand and die in his capital? Either scenario is possible. Objectively, it would have made more sense for him to withdraw, because a competent national leader under those circumstances ought put the nation’s interests ahead of any personal inclination he has towards making melodramatic or operatic gestures…but Stalin had a complicated personality and it’s entirely plausible that he might have chosen to go down in flames.
Suggested Topics
