Why Germany lost WWII

@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.

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.

1. He could have stayed in bunker mentality and gone-down with the city
2. He could have fled elsewhere to fight another day
3. 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.

Ahh come on, you are both wrong, Stalin was not a fool, even if he in fact was paranoid and crazy. If Army group Center had followed the original plan and staged an overwhelming force outside of Moscow in October of course Stalin had run. The classic Russian strategy is scorched earth, they pull back and burn down everything, even Moscow was burned when Napoleon come. Another point is, exactly how could Germany succeed in Moscow, when they did not in Stalingrad and Leningrad ? Moscow is easy to defend, it has some lakes and rivers in front, that would stop the Tanks, and the German infantry never were superior in urban fighting.

But anyway, lets say AG Center is coming for Moscow, the vital railway hub. What is the smart thing to do if you are Stalin, run or stay ? Would he look into the numbers before he made a decision ? At that point, Germany had 7 million soldiers, Russia alone could draft 12 millions, and after USA joined, the total allied number was 30 million soldiers. Even the economic situation was in favor of Stalin. The Russian GDP was 417 billion dollars in 1940, and dropped to 318 billions in 1942 when Germany was at the peak of occupation. Germany had gained almost nothing even if they occupied a lot of territory, because most of it was burned down. Germany went from a GDP at 412 billion dollars in 1941, to a peak of 417 billions in 1942. Occupation is not a good business. And on top of that, the expenses from occupation duty in Western Europe and Russia sky rocketed. I would not worry if I was Stalin. Now, if Japan had done their duty and attacked Russia from behind, then maybe, but that never happened, so the big Eastern Russian army could be moved to Moscow. I figure that if Germany did get lucky and captured Moscow, Stalin would just move behind the Urals, and make a new Capital. China was commy too, and both Bejing and Peking was captured, but they just moved and set up new Capitals. Commies never quit just because you conquer a city. So I figure Stalin would make Jekaterinburg a new Capital, and with a industry east of Ural that still outproduced Germany, the city of Tankograd alone made more tanks than Germany, and Germany now fighting on 3 or more fronts, and AG Center trapped in a burning Moscow during winter, a new Napoleonic retreat would be plausible.

@Narvik:

China was commy too, and both Bejing and Peking was captured, but they just moved and set up new Capitals. Commies never quit just because you conquer a city.

China wasn’t a Communist country until 1949.  In 1941, most of it was either controlled by the Nationalists or by the occupying Japanese; Mao’s Communists only controlled a small part of it at the time.

@Narvik:

Ahh come on, you are both wrong, Stalin was not a fool… But anyway, lets say AG Center is coming for Moscow, the vital railway hub. What is the smart thing to do if you are Stalin, run or stay ?

I’m glad you’re an expert on Stalin’s mental stability and can predict everything he would do to a tee. You obviously know the man well.

Was Hitler a fool? Was Hitler incredibly stupid? There are many, Many, MANY dictators in history that went down with their cities/capitals/armies when they had other options.

Stalin was a maniac, a very evil man, a totalitarian and had a mind that few can comprehend… except you I suppose, since you know EXACTLY what he would do in a given situation.

You want to call someone out as wrong… look in the mirror… assuming you know exactly what an evil maniac like Stalin would do in a given situation? Yeah, I wouldn’t want to be known as that guy.

I propose it’s certainly possible he would stay, there are indicators he had that idea in mind, there are precedents of dictators like him doing the same… I say it’s possible, you say without a doubt it’s completely incomprehensible… who’s the extremist here?

Aside from nazism, do you believe Staline’s mental state and bellicism to spread communism in Western Europe, put Hitler or, any German’s leader for the hypothesis, into a do or die situation? Was there some ways to prevent Stalin going westward, once his armies regained fully functional status after recovery from Stalin’s officier purge?

Said otherwise, Hitler was toasted  anyway…
Unless he would have aligned with France and England to protect Poland from Stalin?

Does Danzig could have been traded as a payment for this protection?

@Baron:

Does Danzig could have been traded as a payment for this protection?

Based on the track record of Adolf “I have no further territorial demands” Hitler, I don’t think so:

“The assertion that it is the intention of the German Reich to coerce the Austrian State is absurd”

• Adolf Hitler, January 30, 1934

“Germany neither intends nor wishes to interfere in the internal affairs of Austria, to annex Austria, or to conclude an Anschluss.”

• Adolf Hitler, May 21, 1935

“I have no further interest in the Czecho-Slovakian State, that is guaranteed. We want no Czechs”

• Adolf Hitler, September 26, 1938

“Germany has concluded a Non-Aggression Pact with Poland… We shall adhere to it unconditionally… we recognize Poland as the home of a great and nationally conscious people.”

• Adolf Hitler, May 21, 1935

“Germany is prepared to agree to any solemn pact of non-aggression, because she does not think of attacking but only acquiring security.”

• Adolf Hitler, 1933

“We have concluded a non-aggression pact with Denmark.”

• Adolf Hitler, before the conquest of Denmark

“Germany never had any conflict with the Northern States and has none today.”

• Adolf Hitler, before the conquest of Norway

“Ther German government has further given the assurance to Belgium and Holland that it is prepared to recognize and to guarantee the inviolability and neutrality of these territories.”

• Adolf Hitler, 1937

“Germany has solemnly recognized and guaranteed France her frontiers as determined after te Saar plebiscite… We thereby finally renounced all claims to Alsace-Lorraine, a land for which we have fought two great wars.”

• Adolf Hitler, May 21, 1935

Hitler seems clearly an “I want it all.” kind of guy.

When I asked the question on Danzig, I was thinking about Poland rather than Germany POV.

A second question rise, why Hitler needed to conquer Poland?
As a buffer zone?
They were not considered Aryans.

@Baron:

Hitler seems clearly an “I want it all.” kind of guy.
A second question rise, why Hitler needed to conquer Poland?
As a buffer zone?
They were not considered Aryans.

Because he was, as you said, an “I want it all” kind of guy.  And remember that Hitler’s “All Germans belongs in the Greater Reich” slogan was basically just that: a convenient slogan.  What he was after was territorial expansion, not Pan-Germanism.  The main way in which the notion of “Aryans versus non-Aryans” factored into his territorial ambitions – especially with regard to the Slavs he despised so much – was that, by regarding non-Aryans as non-people, he gave himself a rationale for what to do with the inhabitants of the territories he conquered: enslave them or exterminate them.

@Baron:

Hitler seems clearly an “I want it all.” kind of guy.

Ah come on… all Hitler wanted was peace, Peace, PEACE!!!..

Aaaaaah, little piece of Poland, a little piece of France, a little piece of Italy and Pakistan perhaps…

Aaaah little slice of Turkey, and now for some dessert, Albania, Romania and Russia wouldn’t hurt!

A little Hitler rap…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtSWAARzm3A

@Wolfshanze:

and now for some desert, Albania, Romania and Russia

Actually, for desert, Hitler selected North Africa.

Germany lost the war on June 22, 1941.

IMO, going preemptive war against Soviet was the only shot Germany ever get at winning.

Soviet Union was such a beast.

Do you think Stalin was not hoping that London and Berlin waste all resources against each other?