Why Germany lost WWII

@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!”

I enjoyed the above two posts… nothing further to add…  :wink:

@FOWHEAD:

@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.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

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.