US shortcommings and how did they win.

[StellarRat]

They also didn't bother with a real navy and had no long range bombers in their inventory. Two huge mistakes IMO.

[Erwin]

"a refusal to recognize the logistical issues involved..."

Yes. Many did realize that but were overruled/fired by the fanatic Nazis who had taken control. The Wehrmacht were horrified at Hitler's gambliong moves early on. But, he kept being proven right... until he wasn't and by then it was too late.

We see pragmatism overruled time and time again right up to today's conflicts. Something to do with the politicisation of war, the fact that the decision makers generally have little/no experience of war, and they rarely have skin in the game (ie: none of their kids doing the dying). Yes, there are always the rare exceptions, but in general...

"They didn't plan for the war they picked."

They picked exactly the right war (blitzkrieg) to match their economic capabilities. But, when things dragged on, that's when the pragmatists and realists were overruled, and Hitler was powerful enuff to drag Germany into an unwinnable/untenable situation. It was his ego and the survival of the Nazis that was at stake, and they were willing to destroy their own country in order to maintain power as long as possible.

Rationally, the Nazis could probably sued for a peace in the early years and kept much if not all of their gains. But, that wasn't enuff. plus they probably estimated that they would merely delay the final armageddon as the Allies would come back for revenge when THEY were ready.

Germany had to win big and win fast or economically they would be f$$$ed. They gambled, and then kept doubling up (down?).

[StellarRat]

I'm not so sure the Allies would have negotiated after Poland and they certainly weren't negotiating after France and Pearl Harbor. Their best hope would have been to stop after Austria.

[womble]

They also didn't bother with a real navy and had no long range bombers in their inventory. Two huge mistakes IMO.

The navy thing was always going to be a huge ask to catch up to the true naval powers of the late '30s. With the Versailles restrictions, the Germans were so far behind in capital ship construction that it was never realistic to expect them to be able to build a realistic battle line, or carrier fleet, without impact on other facets of wartime production. A fleet would have been on the list, I'm sure, if only as a 'national pride' project, if an early armistice could have been achieved, with Chamberlain, say, after the Brits were thrown off the mainland.

[StellarRat]

Yes. The navy thing was a huge problem/undertaking, but it came back to bite them repeatedly. Just another reason why they were doomed to fail in the long run. Not that I mind that. Had the Germans won I wouldn't be here. My Mom came over after the war because Germany was in ruins.

[Erwin]

Germany was always a land power given its location. They did not have the economic capacity to outbuild the Brits and French etc in shipbuilding, so they didn't try. Bismarck and Tirpitz and all the other pocket BS's etc were always designed to be raiders of commercial transports. They did almost do the Brits in with U-Boats. But, the US lendlease and eventual entry saved the Brits' from starving.

It's interesting to speculate if Germany had negotiated a ceasefire with USSR in late '41 (Stalin seemed prett panicked and may have gone for it) whether the western allies would have also caved at that point. Of course it would have set the stage for another war some years later as the Allies would have rebuilt their armies to be much stronger than Germany by then.

So, I think Hitler and the Nazis made a lot of brilliant strategic moves and were not idiots at the start. Their big mistake was in their "conquer the world" and "racial superiority" dogma which gave them a rope long enuff to literally hang them.

eg: the Nazis were welcomed as liberators from the hated Soviets in the Ukraine. But then their brutal suppression gave the Ukrainains no choice but to join the Soviets. Had the Ukrainians provided manpower to the Nazis vs the Soviets...

[Vark]

Erwin, your comparison with the WD is very apt, Rommel was very good tactically, ambitious when planning operations, and a brilliant self-publicist. Trouble is he was hopeless at logistics, relying on the elan of his troops to make up for such errors, so a perfect example of the German army. The self-publicity and self-veneration of their exploits continues, given some of the posts.

Wars are won logistically, not tactically, German tactical supremacy only helped gain a temporary advantage at the start and then to lesson the impact of operational adequacy and strategic inadequacy, as the other countries very unfairly did not capitulate and fought on, trying to beat them.

Squatdog, before seeming to extoll the wonders of the German war machine, consider the cost. A militarised and brutalised society, with the school curriculum perverted to focus on martial prowess, and dubious theories of racial supremacy. I think if the UK/US had perverted a young generation as the Nazis, had spent billions rearming and then become aggressive and bellicose, Nazi Germany would have been crushed, very quickly.

[poesel]

I think if the UK/US had perverted a young generation as the Nazis, had spent billions rearming and then become aggressive and bellicose, Nazi Germany would have been crushed, very quickly.

No - you would have BECOME a Nazi state and joined the ranks. Glad you didn't.

Erwin: please tell me where Hitler was a brillant strategist. IMHO it was charisma, chuzpe and sheer luck that brought him where he was. For instance if France had as much as itched a finger (militarily) when germany re-occupied the Ruhrgebiet Hitler would have shat in his pants and had ordered a retreat. Noone at the time believed he would do what he said and when he did - noone stood up against him (until it was too late).

The early succeses of Germany where the difference between a country that was prepared for and wanted a war versus others that were and wanted not.

[Michael Emrys]

As long as you don't factor in minor details like being MASSIVELY outnumbered across multiple fronts for several years straight, under near total enemy air superiority, with severely compromised logistics and industrial base...yet STILL managing to inflict massively disproportionate casualties despite being at such an incredible disadvantage?

You exaggerate. Through most of the war they were not "massively" outnumbered, at least in terms of what was on the battlefield. They were often marginally outnumbered, but sometimes they were the ones with the numbers on their sides.

In terms of total populations arrayed on each side—Allies versus Axis—yes, by the end of 1941 they were outnumbered. But this was the war that they chose to get into, so whose fault was that?

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Re the Germans in North Africa:

Commitment without a clear strategic goal...

I'm not sure that formulates the problem precisely. As I see it, the problem was disagreement over strategic goals. Rommel was sent to Libya simply to prevent it from being overrun by the British (plus maybe put his thumb in their eye if the opportunity present itself). That was the OKH plan, and the means they assigned to it were more than adequate.

But Rommel exceeded his brief. His plan was to win glory for himself and his army by totally running the British out of the Middle East. Regrettably, from his point of view, the means assigned to him were not nearly adequate to achieve that. Rommel repeatedly exceeded his orders and repeatedly Hitler let him get away with it.

It was this disconnect between two competing strategies that led him to overreach his logistical and other support. It was Hitler's job to resolve this dispute over strategic ends and bring Rommel down to earth. That he failed to do so is one more indication of his personal inadequacies as a war leader.

Michael

[JonS]

As others have pointed out, but to really break this down:

As long as you don't factor in minor details like being MASSIVELY outnumbered across multiple fronts for several years

Actually; not, most of the time. Espeically when they were winning Also, when they were outnumbered, this was by their OWN choice.

under near total enemy air superiority,

Unforced error made by the Germans themselves. The Germans had air superiority and supremacy for the first ~3 years of the war, and there is no law of nature that forced them to relenquish it.

with severely compromised logistics

Unforced error made by the Germans themselves.

with severely compromised industrial base

Unforced error made by the Germans themselves.

STILL managing to inflict massively disproportionate casualties despite being at such an incredible disadvantage?

Except ... they didn't inflict massively disproportionate casualties. Especially when they were at "such an incredible disadvantage." The Germans inflicted massive casualties on the Russians in 1941 and 1942, but funnily enough that was when the German armed forces were at the absolute zenith of their capability comparative to their enemies.

In terms of landmass, the Germans needed approximately 3 years of war to reach the Reich's maximum extent (Sept 39 - Oct 42 at El Alamein and Stalingrad). The Allies took only the next two and a half years to utterly obliterate all that (Nov 42 - May 45).

[womble]

Germany was always a land power given its location. They did not have the economic capacity to outbuild the Brits and French etc in shipbuilding, so they didn't try. Bismarck and Tirpitz and all the other pocket BS's etc were always designed to be raiders of commercial transports.

They had the potential capacity to build a fleet to compete with Britain. They did in the First World War, after all. If they didn't pre-WW2 it was because of the restrictions of Versailles. They managed to build an army and air force that was at least comparable. They certainly had pretensions to global empire. Pretensions that were rudely squashed in WW1, but never eradicated, hence the concept of the eternal Reich.

[JonS]

They had the potential capacity to build a fleet to compete with Britain.

Sort of. The KM is yet another unforced error by the Germans, but I give them a bit of a pass on this one. As Cunninghma said - in a slightly different context - "It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition." All navies in WWII except Germanies contained large numbers of ships built during WWI or in the decade afterwards. Germany really only had the 1930s in which to build up it's fleet, and that really isn't long enough to construct something capable of taking on the world's pre-eminent Navy, much less the RN and the French Navy, in something toe-to-toe-ish.

On the other hand, a different construction programme might have got them a more useful navy ... although that would have required a unrealistic amount of foresight.

[StellarRat]

Vark - The Nazis didn't pervert an entire generation of Germans. They wanted to but they weren't around long enough to accomplish this. Most of Germans that did the fighting and dying were simple citizens that answered the call of the nation and their duty even if they had doubts about they're government. Sure there were some fanatics like the SS, but for the most part they were just soldiers. You have to remember war was only 6 years long and most of soldiers were adults when it started. Too late for fanatical indoctrination to be effective.

[JonS]

They had the 1930s to work with, too, which in turn built on the unrest endemic in the 1920s, which in turn built on the carefully nutured '1918 stab in the back' myth. So, a little longer than 6 years.

They may not have been fanatics, and they may have had their doubts, but there were still ample non-SS Germans more than ready to answer the vilest calls of the nation. A lot of them, for the most part, weren't 'just soldiers.'

[Erwin]

"if France had as much as itched a finger (militarily) when germany re-occupied the Ruhrgebiet Hitler would have shat in his pants and had ordered a retreat."

Agreed. But Hitler was a great (strategic) poker player and correctly predicted that the "decadent, weak" Allies would do nothing in response to, Anschluss, The Rhineland, Czechoslovakia etc. That's what makes him a great strategist in the early years (including his rise in the 30's). As mentioned, the Germans had virtually nothing on their western borders for several weeks after they invaded Poland and the French could have simply walked into the Ruhr.

Maybe the reason he liked Rommel so much is that Rommel was a similar gambler (with good operational instincts).

Their arrogance and over-confidence re their gambling skills eventually done em in.

[noxnoctum]

This might be a stupid question but why didn't the rest of the allies just start copying the Garand to replace their bolt action rifles (or even Germany for that matter)?

Too big a shift for production? I'm not suggesting they could refit their entire army but it makes sense to me to shift production for every NEW rifle made to the new, pretty much superior in every way rifle.

Or same thing for the MG42 (allies steal the idea).

[Erwin]

entrenched commericial interests in existing plant and machinery. remember wars are usually about some people/companies making lots and lots of money.

[noxnoctum]

Figures .

[StellarRat]

Nationalistic pride and greed have ruined many a weapons program. The farce of the US Air Force. Tanker replacement program is the latest hoax. After Airbus won with lowest bid, Congress forced the Air Force to change the requirements so Boeing could win. What a joke.

[StellarRat]

The US got scammed in WW I with the Sho-sho.... that was probably enough to give them a healthy distaste for foreign weapons. As far as the M1 goes some armies thought ammo would be wasted if a gun fired too quickly.

[Boche]

Nationalistic pride and greed have ruined many a weapons program. The farce of the US Air Force. Tanker replacement program is the latest hoax. After Airbus won with lowest bid, Congress forced the Air Force to change the requirements so Boeing could win. What a joke.

Happens everywhere sadly...

[Squatdog]

As others have pointed out, but to really break this down:

Actually; not, most of the time. Espeically when they were winning Also, when they were outnumbered, this was by their OWN choice.

Unforced error made by the Germans themselves. The Germans had air superiority and supremacy for the first ~3 years of the war, and there is no law of nature that forced them to relenquish it.

Unforced error made by the Germans themselves.

Unforced error made by the Germans themselves.

Except ... they didn't inflict massively disproportionate casualties. Especially when they were at "such an incredible disadvantage." The Germans inflicted massive casualties on the Russians in 1941 and 1942, but funnily enough that was when the German armed forces were at the absolute zenith of their capability comparative to their enemies.

In terms of landmass, the Germans needed approximately 3 years of war to reach the Reich's maximum extent (Sept 39 - Oct 42 at El Alamein and Stalingrad). The Allies took only the next two and a half years to utterly obliterate all that (Nov 42 - May 45).

LOL@all of this...

Germany WAS at a massive numerical and material disadvantage and DID inflict massively disproportionate casualties, especially on the Eastern Front.

Look at Kursk; they were outnumbered roughly two to one and assaulting heavily entrenched positions prepared in depth, yet STILL inflicted over three times the casualties, but simply couldn't overcome the Soviet's sheer weight of numbers.

Once America entered the war, Germany had the vastness of Soviet Russia, the global resources of the British Empire and the industrial plant of America arrayed against them.

Unforced error made by the Germans themselves. The Germans had air superiority and supremacy for the first ~3 years of the war, and there is no law of nature that forced them to relenquish it.

The sheer attrition across multiple front forced them to relinquish it.

[Vark]

Perverted does not mean brain washed, but teaching children the vile curriculum the statutory law required did damage those children and thus perverted them. The "it was only the SS" lie has been well and truly proved to be just that, often by German historians and archivists who have tried to get their fellow countrymen to face the truth. A degenerate system like Nazism infects all that it touches, and given it was the government that infection spread to all areas of German life, domestic and military.

As for Rommel great tactician, crap logistician, his daring crossing of the Meuse was again a trimph of self-publicity over fact. His engineering assets were badly handled and lagged behind his spearhead, so Rommel got his tanks to set fire to various buildings and using the ad-hoc screen forced a crossing. Personally taking part is normally a sure sign something has gone wrong, yet the Post war Allies, desperate for a decent German happily bought into the mythical James Mason portrayal. So we have the Desert Fox tales but few realise he relied on his brave Italian Allies to save his bacon more than once.

Oh, and he loved Hitler at the start, extolling his virtues and the New Germany to his wife in countless letters, rather like the German soldiers, surrounded in Stalingrad, trusting in their father-like Fuhrer to rescue them, the same soldiers who'd commited countless war atrocities as they marched to their deserved fate. The BBC had an interesting article about the interogations of Germans captured and made POW's, most of the British were truly shocked at the delight a significant minority showed, when recalling attacking non-military targets. All signs of a nation, that has morally been perverted, willingly or unwillingly, and as a teacher, their corruption of children, as national policy, is quite simply appalling.

[Vark]

Squatdog are you Steiner Mk II by any chance? You seem to have bought into the Germanic Wagnerian, mighty warriors submerged by the hordes, thesis (excuse) for defeat, hook line and sinker.