Why Germany lost WWII

Hitlers main error was he started a fight, but had no idea how to end it.

Racism works if you want to dominate a small country, but it sure backfire if you want to conquer the world, and you expect 80 million Arians to ethnical cleanse billions on billions of other people and steal their soil. Hitlers only realistic object would be to capture and subdue Europa and Russia to the Archangelsk Volga line. After that it would be a stalemate between the great sea powers US and UK, and the great land power Germany. This stalemate could go on for decades, maybe generations, kind of like the Cold War against the commies. But I figure Hitler would never be prudent and patience enough for that.

To me, while its clear the Germans hurt themselves militarily by devoted so many resources to the Holocaust, it’s a moot point when it comes to discussing if it cost Germany the war. Its the equivalent of sending the Japanese fleet to Leyte Gulf and failing miserably… win or lose, the war was already over for Japan by 1944… the only question left was “how long would it take”. Sending or not sending the fleet to Leyte… winning or losing at Leyte… matters not… the war was already decided… like Marc says, its more a question of when it ends in defeat for the Axis, not if.

I would argue the EXACT same thing for resources dedicated to the Holocaust… it really wasn’t in full swing till late in the war, and by then, most of the major deciders of the war were already played out. Had Germany ceased the Holocaust in totality and devoted everything to the war effort… they could have prolonged the war surely… but it would not have changed the outcome (once again, short of some other major game-changer like the A-bomb).

No nation is invincible in war… NO NATION… anyone thinking England or Russia was completely immune to defeat might as well book a ticket on the HMS Titanic. Having said that… there’s tons of variables in play, and some really stupid decisions took Germany out of the running for the war… by mid 1942 the writing was on the wall, and by 1943, Germany was in retreat on all fronts.

The Holocaust was a late-player in the war… at least as far as resources devoted to the effort, and as previously mentioned, it was already too late… Germany’s resource allocation to the Holocaust sped the ending of the war to some degree (what exactly, I don’t know, but it definitely shortened the war)… but it didn’t cost Germany the war, not even close. I think while it was a terrible, terrible atrocity to mankind, it should never be considered a major reason why Germany lost the war… it was lost well-before.

You’re only looking at the cost in terms of money. Think of all of the human resources that were lost not only in the final solution, but the lead up to that that began even before the war did. None of the Jews worked towards their war effort.

I find it quite optimistic for anyone to assume “no internment of Jews” results in “Jews aiding German war effort”. A reason(whether it is believed or not) that the Germans said they were interning them was to reduce the cases of partisan terrorism. If you respond to the 1933 pic- that I hope posts- by saying, “Well that was a response by Jews because of Antisemitism. I mean if Germany didn’t discriminate against them at all.”, but removing Jews from influential positions, and then increasing nationalism, tossing out the crippling Versailles Treaty, economic miracle, everything that makes the Third Reich the Third Reich never happens and you have the despair-ridden Weimar Republic indefinitely.

My point is Holocaust or no Holocaust, the Jews were largely not going to help the Germans.

@Narvik:

Hitlers main error was he started a fight, but had no idea how to end it.

Quite.

He thought he’d won the fight against Britain when he took down France, according to one documentary I saw. He never even considered that Britain would fight on.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

You’re only looking at the cost in terms of money. Think of all of the human resources that were lost not only in the final solution, but the lead up to that that began even before the war did. None of the Jews worked towards their war effort.

I never once mentioned cost in terms of money… not once… not sure where you thought I said that. “Cost Germany the war” isn’t a monetary statement. I debated the initial post (Fowhead’s) which basically blamed Germany’s loss of the war primarily on the Holocaust, which is what I countered with deliberate and specific counterpoints to the conclusion that while the Holocaust was terrible, it wasn’t the main reason they lost, or even a major contributing factor… I debated that the war was already lost by the time it kicked into full gear.

Also, the original post (not you) tied “The Holocaust” as a major (if not the) reason they lost the war… The Holocaust is a very specific thing… its the rounding up and killing of the Jews under German access/control (and the things tied-into it, like infrastructure, trains, etc)… if someone wants to debate “not allowing people of Jewish descent to work in certain jobs”… that’s NOT “The Holocaust”… don’t try and change the original post I was actually debating, with something completely different because the original post I was debating about (the Holocaust) isn’t holding water as the main reason Germany lost. I mean at least say “okay, well what about this other subject here…”, because job discrimination is a little different then mass-scale ethnic cleansing.

Before you go off on a different tangent (job discrimination of Jews as the major reason Germany lost the war), i’ll shoot that down too… There’s a LOT of reasons Germany lost the war… if you’re going to go over the whole “Jews not working for Germany” angle, while that might look good on paper, there’s far greater reasons why Germany lost the war if you’re going to blame job loss… Germany never took the war seriously until (once again) it was already lost… Germany didn’t really go to full war-time production until 1943, roughly 4 years after the war started. Germany was still producing luxury goods for several years into the war, and German women by-and-large stayed home during this same time… ie: Germany’s female population, a lot more bodies than just those of Jewish descent, stayed home instead of working. For all that Germany blamed Jews for everything, its almost ironic that trying to blame the Jews (ok, just kidding here, it’s really the Nazi’s obsession with blaming Jews), doesn’t really have a major impact on why they lost the war… there’s SO MANY bad decisions the Germans made, on the battlefield and in production that cost them the war, the Jewish contribution (or lack thereof) is pretty minor in-comparison. This last paragraph is to a completely different subject though, because I was originally debating blaming THE HOLOCAUST as the major reason why they lost the war, that’s a very different thing than job discrimination.

The original post was about a statement that I made. If your going to answer it correctly then you should find out what I actually said.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

The original post was about a statement that I made. If your going to answer it correctly then you should find out what I actually said.

And on that point: the link for the original material is here…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2rUe3j2QFE

…and the part being discussed runs from 1:02:00 to 1:05:40, in case this is helpful to the discussion.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

The original post was about a statement that I made. If your going to answer it correctly then you should find out what I actually said.

This is the post I saw, so that’s why I mentioned Fowhead

@FOWHEAD:

hello I just watched a utube vedio with GHG and he was asked what he thought the biggest reason Germany lost was. He thought it was hitlers use of resources killing jewish people instead of using them in his war effort. it was a hour long vedio and this was just one question he answered . the way he talked about it made think he is right. all the reasons I thought they messed up and I never thought about it liked he did. now I think he’s right. anyone else" ideas on this?

Yes, it mentions you on rereading it, but it still doesn’t change one word I said… THE HOLOCAUST is not why Germany lost the war… I based my statements on what FOWHEAD stated at the beginning of THIS thread, and my initial reply was to FOWHEAD, not you.

FOWHEAD summarized that the Holocaust is why Germany lost the war, that’s what I responded to… your defenses eventually brought up no Jews working as a main reason… it’s all irrelevant, because blaming the Jews (not literally, but by about the loss of Jews) as the main driver why Germany lost the war is a false narrative.

It doesn’t matter if you say the Holocaust is why Germany lost the war or if you say its because they weren’t in the workforce as the main reason why they lost the war… in EITHER CASE, the Holocaust or Jews not working is NOT the main reason (or even a major reason) why Germany lost the war… Read MY DETAILED RESPONSES to BOTH narratives, and you’ll see it doesn’t matter who comes up with this idea about Germany’s Jewish population, neither is the main or even a major reason why they lost.

Germany made a lot of really bad decisions… not going to a total war production footing until 1943 was a very major reason (and far more important than not having Jews working) if you focus on production, and if you focus on infrastructure and/or diverting of resources to the Holocaust, the war was already lost before then. Not even to count the massive blunders on the battlefield in multiple instances where Germany through things massively beneficial to the German war effort out the window.

The Holocaust was a terrible thing… what they did to the Jews (and other ethnic groups) was a terrible thing… and while a case can be made that the war may have been shortened by things tied into their ethnic policies concerning jews, it being either the most important, or even a major reason why they lost the war, just isn’t reality.

None of us can prove or disprove any theories on this topic. We can only offer our opinions.

I think Germany lost the war because of Hitler.

There is a fair chance WWII would occur even without Hitler, because of the Versialles treaty which was so unfair from a German point of view. Without him and the nazi campaign he spearheaded, many Jews (and with them a bunch of scientists, whether they were Jews or not) would not leave Germany before the war. Many of them, maybe most of them, would have assisted their Vaterland during the time of war. They might not have gotten the a-bomb, but an earlier introduction of jet planes, rocket powered weapons, radar, better enigma services etc. could have made a great impact in German favor.

Without Hitler, the Wehrmacht could have gotten more weapons it needed, instead of weapon Hitler meant they were in need of, like the Fucke Wulf that became fighter bomber, instead of fighter. The generals could have made tactical retreats on the East front when needed, to places better suited for defence. That could have saved tons of materiel and personnel. A whole army would not have been lost at Stalingrad, most likely because Stalingrad would not be so important for the generals. The panzers in France on D-day would have been available earlier, because the gefreiter-in-chief would not have been inaccessible in time of need (any general would accept to be awakened when the enemy attack on a broad front).

@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?

@FOWHEAD:

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." 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:

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!”