Reason for Germany's defeat

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

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.

A good (if a bit drab) book on the subject :
The Caucasus and the Oil, The German-Soviet War in the Caucasus 1942/43 Wilhelm Tieke

The overall impression is that the Germans simply lacked the ressources to push to Baku. There was indeed only "a few" hundred km to go but it was across some of the best defensive terrain one can imagine. The Soviets were also much closer to their supply lines than the Germans. Mule pack supply was not very effective :mrgreen:

So, even if the objective looked good on the map, the Germans probably didn't have a chance of reaching each it with the allocated forces (thanks to Stalingrad).

[Victor]

The Germans could however, threaten the oil fields as well as the transports on the Caspian Sea from the air.

[drillsgt]

I have thought long and hard about this question. The first and foremost reason is having having a former Corporal tell the Generals how to fight( not just Generals , but some of the most brilliant commanders ever).Second,Germany failed to win the "Battle of Britain" which meant that when they decided to invade the USSR , they would have to fight a war on 2 fronts.Third, the Germans did not ever develop a 4 engine strategic bomber like the U.S. B-17 and later B-29.The Russians were simply able to move the arms factories out of range of the Hinkel He111 and the were safe. Forth Germany never truely put the country on a wartime footing as far as their industry was concerned. They were dramatically out produced by the Soviet Union, and the United States. There are more reasons of lessor importance , but these I believe are major mistakes. Garry Owen!!!

[Chandernagore]

Which makes me think that the only developped German "secret weapon" which had the potential of turning the tables was the jet fighter.

But the little Austrian corporal had a deep vision : use them as bombers

[rcristi]

QUOTE

Which makes me think that the only developped German \"secret weapon\" which had the potential of turning the tables was the jet fighter. But the little Austrian corporal had a deep vision : use them as bombers  :lol:

Agree. One question though, why our painter insisted to transform Me 262 in a bomber when they desperately needed a fighter? just to get back bombing Britain? he did have the V1 and V2 for that...

Cheers

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

Agree. One question though, why our painter insisted to transform Me 262 in a bomber when they desperately needed a fighter? just to get back bombing Britain? he did have the V1 and V2 for that...

General Galland, late commander of the "Jagd", thought it was pure madness : a pathological need to retaliate for the bombing of Germany. He couldn't see the fighter arm as anything but purely defensive and it didn't fit his mood at the time. The last big counter offensive launched by the Luftwaffe in the west (made possible by Speer's industrial miracles) was likewise wasted in serie of inefficient, piecemal ground attacks. While Galland was desperately urging concentration against the huge B17 "boxes" that were turning German cities into rubbles.

His memoirs are very interesting.

[Dan Po]

[quote]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.[/quote]

I agree with this oppinion. I don t see how the US can atack Europe without the vital teritory of GB. And then the defeat of SU was very possible ...

But a Europe rulled by nazi its a nightmare and i don t want to think at this ...

[Victor]

[quote]But a Europe rulled by nazi its a nightmare and i don t want to think at this ...[/quote]

I remember seeing a German economist on Discovery claiming that all the Nazi economical successes were soap bubbles. Sooner or later they would have crumbled economically, just like the Communist did.

[johnny_bi]

[quote]I remember seeing a German economist on Discovery claiming that all the Nazi economical successes were soap bubbles. Sooner or later they would have crumbled economically, just like the Communist did.[/quote]

I have a post here from a Axis forum discussion... an interesting discussion about German economy before WWII...

[Victor]

[quote]
I have a post here from a Axis forum discussion... an interesting discussion about German economy before WWII...[/quote]

Where? There is no link.

[johnny_bi]

Sorry for the link :oops:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php...7520&highlight=

[Chandernagore]

I cannot imagine a scenario in which Germany wins the war without the A bomb and the US has it. So the whole war resolves around a piece of scientific research and, in comparison, all the rest, the battles, the strategies, the soldiers, the production etc... are as effective as a firefly on a pachyderm's butt :mrgreen:

[bebe]

I think the Germans lost the war because Hitler should have lured Franco into the war, if not invade Spain. He would have taken Gibraltar and with it Northern Africa (oil!!!) and teh Royal Navy in the Mediteranean would have been anihilated. Then, with all his forces he should have started BArbarossa, in spring, not sumer.

*translated by admin*

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

I think the Germans lost the war because Hitler should have lured Franco into the war, if not invade Spain. He would have taken Gibraltar and with it Northern Africa (oil!!!) and teh Royal Navy in the Mediteranean would have been anihilated. Then, with all his forces he should have started BArbarossa, in spring, not sumer. *translated by admin*

I don't see how the Germans could have started Barbarossa earlier by invading Spain. Unless they wanted to follow in the footsteps of Napoleon : invading both and getting none :roll:

[mabadesc]

I think Bebe has an interesting argument...