Why Germany lost WWII

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?

@CWO:

Actually, for desert, Hitler selected North Africa.

You know Grammar Nazis went out of style in the 20th century. Nobody likes Nazis.

@ABWorsham:

Germany lost the war on June 22, 1941.

Another person who somehow thinks Russia is completely invincible (I guess the Russian’s didn’t even need to have an army, I mean what’s the point of an army if you’re completely immune to defeat?), even though they just lost the previous war to the same Germany 20 years earlier.

If you would crack open a history book, the Russians lost to Japan in 1905 and to Germany in 1917… their track record of winning wars in the 20th century was actually pretty poor.

Actually, the Russian track record of winning battles have been poor the last 500 years. But that doesn’t matter, because its impossible to occupy Russia. When your army is in Moscow, your supply line is too long. Russia is the biggest country in the world, twice the size of America. And it is a winter land with mountains, snow, blizzards, swamps and marshes, and only a few dirt roads that turn into mud roads when your trucks come with supply. So basically, the problem is not to kill the Russian army and conquer Moscow, the real problem is to supply your victorious army. Read the book Prisoners of Geography, Ten maps that tell you anything about global politics, by Tim Marshall. He explains why the Russian territory is too large to capture by any other enemy powers. Russia have been attacked and lost many wars, against Poland in 1605, against Sweden in 1708, against Napoleon in 1812, against UK, France and Turkey in 1853, against Japan in 1905, against Germany in 1917, against Poland in 1920, against Germany in 1941, just to mention the big ones. And when Russia attack minors, like Finland, Afghanistan and Turkey, they usually lose them too. Russian soldiers are really poor but that dont matter, since it is impossible to occupy Russia in the long run. You can hold part of it for 3 or 4 years, but that’s it.

So again, the biggest mistake Hitler did was not the preemptive attack on Russia, that was actually a rational idea, but the mistake was to try to colonize all of Russia in a short time. It took the Brits centuries to kill the local populations in North America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and so on, and colonize it. Hitler would do this to Russia in 3 weeks. That was the mistake. I think Hitler could have won the war if he only secured the buffer territories like Finland, Baltic States, Belorussia and Ukraine, and let the next German generation decide if they should continue into proper Russia. This lines would be easy do defend. The route through Belorussia is a bottleneck with natural flank protection by marshes north and south, same with the Bessarabia route.  Stalin would get trouble trying to get it back, considered the state the Red Army was in at that time. Then make a stalemate with the Western Powers. London would probably accept that since the classic English strategy is power balance, and a Great Germany would balance with a lesser Russia and an imperial France.

Another mistake was to run 2 different revolutions at the same time. Hitlers first object was his attack on religion, he tried to remove the Jewish and Christian religions, but had noting to replace them with. Stalin replaced it with atheism, and that worked for a while. But Hitler did not replace the absent of religion with anything, he had nothing new to offer, except the worship of himself, and that did not fill the void. Its nothing wrong with replacing religions, and its nothing wrong with land grabs, but Hitler did it at the same time, and that would be too much for one man to fulfill. Both a war against the domestic peoples religion and faith, and at the same time another war against foreign countries. Too much, man, not big enough jaws for that

just my 2 cents, and if you run out of arguments, please dont fall back into plan B with ad hominem attacks, out of the 8 billions angry people of the world, we are just a fistfull of history buffs that share an interest in this topic, we should be brothers, man

just my 2 cents, and if you run out of arguments, please dont fall back into plan B with ad hominem attacks,

Did you meant Reductio ad Hitlerium or a Godwin point?

@Narvik:

just my 2 cents, and if you run out of arguments, please dont fall back into plan B with ad hominem attacks

Cute use of overly-flowery wording, but I’m not attacking anyone… of course you’re making an accusation of me, so that’s an ad hominem attack you know.

You just basically agreed with everything I said… Russia isn’t invincible, and Germany could have won had the right conditions occurred… if you’d like to actually discuss that instead of using silly phrases to attack me, let me know.

Does US not helping Soviet was an important condition for a shot at winning on the Eastern Front?
I heard that already active Siberian troops were not that numerous but the enrollment and mobilization in the first six months were very high.
Without  proper equipment, does Soviet armies would have been able to fought back at an higher rate of casualties than 5-6 to 1?

@Wolfshanze:

@Narvik:

just my 2 cents, and if you run out of arguments, please dont fall back into plan B with ad hominem attacks

Cute use of overly-flowery wording, but I’m not attacking anyone… of course you’re making an accusation of me, so that’s an ad hominem attack you know.

You just basically agreed with everything I said… Russia isn’t invincible, and Germany could have won had the right conditions occurred… if you’d like to actually discuss that instead of using silly phrases to attack me, let me know.

First, I was not addressing you, but another member that really is a p in the a. Second, I dont agree with you. I said the Red Army was not invincible, but the Russian territory is. The distance is too long to supply an army. During winter, with snow and mud roads, a German truck use 7 times more fuel than it use on hard surface roads home in Germany. That is what broke the German attack. It become out of supply.

@Private:

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.

I agree with this, but that may not even fully capture all the reasons Germany lost.  In terms of just pure industrial production capacity Germany could not compete against the US, especially with the latter protected by its isolation from bombing.  I recently read an interesting book, Death Ride, that made much of Germany’s failure to develop long-range bombers, and with much of the USSR’s industry moved well East of Moscow Germany could not bomb it.  Göring apparently preferred lots of little short-range bombers to fewer and larger long-range bombers.  It also made much of the Germans’ decision to divert part of its Eastern Front ground forces to Italy leaving them under-supplied and outnumbered in Operation Citadel.  The near-impossibility of maintaining distant supply lines, despite Göring’s assurances that he could make up for it, have been discussed to death.

All-in-all, I think the reasons are so many that in retrospect it would have taken a near-miraculous perfect storm of events for Gemany to have emerged victorious.