Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (4) [1] 2 3 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Reason for Germany's defeat
Girlz RLue
Posted: May 05, 2004 04:36 pm
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1
Member No.: 276
Joined: May 05, 2004



* title edited by admin *

Hiiiiiii..
i am new her!! :lol:
dont i get a WELCOME ??? :roll: :roll:


anywayz i would like ur help can u give me the Reason 4 germanys defeat?? o:)

I'II be thankfull
THX
PM
Top
mabadesc
Posted: May 05, 2004 06:20 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 803
Member No.: 40
Joined: July 11, 2003



Obviously, there are many factors that contributed to Germany's defeat and it's a debate that has continued since the end of the war.

I don't pretend to know the answers, but I will mention one factor which I found quite interesting. In one of the books I read, entitled something like "The Nuremberg interrogations", Goering was asked the very same question.

His answer was a bit surprising. He clearly stated that the only reason Germany lost the war was due to the Allies' development of long-range escort fighters (ex: Mustang P-47?). According to him, once these were introduced, Germany could no longer protect itself from massive bombing raids inside its borders, which effectively destroyed the country's War Industry.

Certainly an interesting point, I thought...
PM
Top
Chandernagore
Posted: May 05, 2004 06:33 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 818
Member No.: 106
Joined: September 22, 2003



My 5 cents. Reasons for Germany defeat :

1. An ideology which antagonized every living thing on the planet.

2. A Great Leader who thought he had some grasp in military matters and constantly interfered with the professional people under his command.

3. A US president who understood the Great Leader.
PM
Top
Von Maybach
Posted: May 06, 2004 06:38 am
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 78
Member No.: 209
Joined: January 27, 2004



The main reason of Germany's defeat is a war on two main fronts, with powerfull opponents,... their strenght was greatly underestimated by Ady Hittler.
PM
Top
88mm
Posted: May 11, 2004 07:51 am
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 54
Member No.: 18
Joined: June 23, 2003



QUOTE
His answer was a bit surprising. He clearly stated that the only reason Germany lost the war was due to the Allies' development of long-range escort fighters (ex: Mustang P-47?).
It's P-51, P-47 was much more a support fighter.
PM
Top
mabadesc
Posted: May 11, 2004 02:48 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 803
Member No.: 40
Joined: July 11, 2003



QUOTE
It's P-51, P-47 was much more a support fighter.


Thanks for the correction, 88mm.
Still, what do you think of Goering's assessment? He placed more importance on this one factor than on all others.
PM
Top
dragos
Posted: May 11, 2004 04:45 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



Keeping in mind that Goering was the commander of the Luftwaffe, I think he overestimates the importance of the airforce. Remember he thought he could crush Great Britain with Luftwaffe, or he could supply the troops encircled at Stalingrad by air.

IMO, the same as in 1939 the Polish Army was too weak to stop the invasion of Wehrmacht, the Wehrmacht and the German industry was too weak to fight the united powers of Allies and the Soviet Union. The anti-Axis coalition formed by the United Nations Declaration of 1 January 1942 included 26 countries !
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
mabadesc
Posted: May 11, 2004 05:14 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 803
Member No.: 40
Joined: July 11, 2003



QUOTE
the Wehrmacht and the German industry was too weak to fight the united powers of Allies and the Soviet Union.


Dragos, what you said certainly makes sense, but I wonder if sheer quantity and raw strength is enough. Keep in mind, with all this imbalance of strength, there were still some turning points in the war when, if Germany had won those battles, we can't be too sure what the final outcome would have been.

For instance, in '42, Germany was just a couple hundred kilometers away from permanently cutting off the oil supply to USSR, in southern Ukraine/Russia. Then the whole Stalingrad mess began...

If that had actually happened, I don't know if the USSR would have been able to continue with an organized resistance. They may have collapsed and continued only with isolated guerillas.
And with the Eastern Front situation solved.....the entire dynamics of the war would have changed.

I know this is just pure speculation, but this wasn't the only key point. There were several such points in the war that could have turned the tide. What are your thoughts?
PM
Top
dragos
Posted: May 11, 2004 05:47 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE
For instance, in '42, Germany was just a couple hundred kilometers away from permanently cutting off the oil supply to USSR, in southern Ukraine/Russia. Then the whole Stalingrad mess began...

Actually the German Army Group A managed to capture the oilfields of Maikop before the end of August 1942.

I believe that the perspective of Germany achieving a decisive success on the Eastern Front was just an illusion, amplified by the successes in 1941 and the belief that the Red Army was decaying irreversibly. I think that at the moment when the invasion of USSR was conceived, the Germans had no idea of the proportions involved. Often between units there were hundreds of kilometers uncovered. Speaking of intelligence, they were shocked to encounter T-34, let alone the knowledge of the resources or the manpower the SU had at her disposal. The Soviet disaster in 1941 was a political cause, but as Stalin let free hand to his experienced generals, the Soviets turned the tide when no one believed they are capable of this any more. Perhaps the only hope for Germany and her allies against SU was a collapse by any mean of the political leading echelon, Stalin in first place.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
mabadesc
Posted: May 11, 2004 06:27 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 803
Member No.: 40
Joined: July 11, 2003



QUOTE
Actually the German Army Group A managed to capture the oilfields of Maikop before the end of August 1942.


I meant the oil and supply route from the Middle East which, if I recall correctly, was also used by the Allies to send material goods to the Soviet Union.

In general, though, I do see your point, but there were still some strategic mistakes which, had they not been made by Germany, may have put the Allies in a much more difficult situation. In the case of a much longer, more drawn-out war, the huge strength and quantity amassed by the UN would probably still have prevailed, but at much larger casualty costs, and in this case, diplomacy would have started to play an increasingly larger role (i.e., for some countries, like the US and England - armistice, negotiations, spheres of influence, etc...).
PM
Top
C-2
Posted: May 11, 2004 08:08 pm
Quote Post


General Medic
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 2453
Member No.: 19
Joined: June 23, 2003



Von Stein,a German Stuka pilot,told a Romanian camarad,while retreting:"That's what happens ,when we are led by a painter".
The painter could not read maps....
PMUsers Website
Top
dragos
Posted: May 11, 2004 09:43 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



mabadesc, just to point the scale of things involved, it is approximated that in 1942, the Soviet partisan activity kept up to 250,000 second-line troops away from the front.

I doubt that any of US, England of Soviet Union would have agreed on an armistice. "Unconditional surrender" was the word of the day.

And in case of a prolonged conflict, the A-bomb was on the way... :roll:
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
johnny_bi
Posted: May 12, 2004 01:36 am
Quote Post


Sergent major
*

Group: Members
Posts: 214
Member No.: 6
Joined: June 18, 2003



QUOTE
And in case of a prolonged conflict, the A-bomb was on the way...


Many things were on the way... on both sides.
PM
Top
mabadesc
Posted: May 12, 2004 03:57 am
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 803
Member No.: 40
Joined: July 11, 2003



QUOTE
I doubt that any of US, England of Soviet Union would have agreed on an armistice. \"Unconditional surrender\" was the word of the day


You are probably right about the USSR, because in their case they were fighting for their very survival.

As far as GB and USA were concerned, however, I don't think it would have been out of the question in case the war was longer and tilting in favor of Germany. Remember, both GB and America have had an extra feeling of (false) security because of the ocean (or sea) that separated them from the enemy. Due to this, they always felt less at danger than other nations.
Furthermore, these two countries (particularly the US) have had the misfortune of always needing overwhelming support from the population in order to engage into and continue a war. The US barely was able to gather population support through the Pearl Harbour air raid.

By the way, the term "unconditional surrender" was mentioned at a press conference by an American official (Roosevelt or Eisenhower, I forget), who was taken by surprise by the reporter's question. His British counterpart was privately outraged by the use of the term because it eliminated any possibility for diplomatic negotiations.
The US official himself, after the war ended, admitted that he was taken by surprise and he blurted out these words because he remembered them from a history lesson back when he was in college, or something incredibly stupid like that... :shock: :D

Finally, as Johnny-bi mentions, many new developments (including the A-bomb) were on the way for both GB/USA as well as for Germany. It is not inconceivable that, had the war been going better for Germany, they would have had more protection for their own A-bomb program and may have built one before the US.
PM
Top
88mm
Posted: May 12, 2004 05:44 am
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 54
Member No.: 18
Joined: June 23, 2003



In my opinion, the only scenario in wich Germany could won is them wining the Battle of Britain. This way the US had to fight on two fronts on it's own, Germany having it's industry at safe, SU losing the allied logistic support and so on. Even so with the painter in power I'm not so sure.
PM
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (4) [1] 2 3 ... Last » Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0255 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]