Germany is a relativity small country - 80 million population. Yet, it took almost the entire rest of the world, as well as luck, to defeat them. Germany could have (maybe even should have) won the war. How did they do it?
shareGermany didn't just take over most of Europe at once.
Early on, the territorial annexations were more political than military. Austria was annexed without a shot fired. A big part of Czechoslovakia was ceded in hopes that Hitler would leave it at that and stop there.
Germany signed a non aggression pact with the Soviet Union, and Hitler & Stalin basically seized Poland and split it between them.
Don't forget, that WW1 was only a short time before all this, and most people had no taste for war. WW1 was absolutely horrifying, and people didn't want to go through it again. They thought if they just gave Hitler this and that he'd stop, but he didn't .
Britain was mostly saved due to geography. They were an island, and it would have been a major pain to invade them.
Germany also had many innovative strategies like the blitzkrieg, and they developed many state of the art weapons. They were the first to launch an object into space with the V1/V2 rockets, and they invented the modern "assault rifle"- the Sturmgewehr or "storm rifle". Luckily for the rest of the world, those were developed late in the war, and didn't have a major effect. They also invented jet aircraft, but again, too little, too late.
While the nazi's were obviously evil pricks, Germany itself had a strong military history, and while national socialism was a horrible ethos, they did value innovation in technology.
Britain was mostly saved due to geography. They were an island, and it would have been a major pain to invade them.
Rubbish. The Romans, Vikings and The French under the Normans defeated and controlled Britain for centuries employing less technology. Hitler's Germany was not as smart as they thought. They also thought they could conquer a 15 time zone country in 2 months when Napoleon failed.
RIP actress Inger Stensland (1934 -1970)
http://www.ingerstevens.org/
10th century England didn't have the worlds largest fleet and a mighty air force. The Germans could barely attack Norway using the sea, and they lost 80% of their fleet in doing so. An invasion of Britain at that point was fantasy.
shareCommonsense (and a little knowledge of history) should tell you that your comparison is ludicrous.
shareSimple answer is that Germans are among the most genetically gifted people in the world. High IQ coupled with a strong work ethic and as much if not more discipline than any race of people on earth. If you ever tour Central and Eastern Europe, one thing you will notice is how advanced areas of Europe that had been settled by Germans are compared to others. The further you get from German influence, the more primitive the culture and level of advancement.
share@firstwinsgop-1.
I think I read somewhere that the Germans were the most advanced country in the history of the world in medicine, science, technology, and art (especially music.) Also, Patton said "We beat the wrong enemy."
Agreed - Germans 'did it' because there was a belief that they were superior in every way and enough of them were stupid enough to believe it.
Unfortunately for them, they were wrong.
Without passing judgement on whether Germans are superior in some way, they believed they were superior and they took to the notion of survival of the fittest. So they decided to go out and challenge non-German fitness. They ran smack into another group convinced of their superiority - the Jews. Jewish reluctance to fight back emboldened the Germans and they quickly ran over Europe's low-hanging fruit (and to be fair, the Jews were not a nation to be overrun). The Brits and Russians proved more formidable but really by then the Germans had already collapsed under their own hubris and corruption. Lessons learned but there's no assurance it can't happen again.
sharethat's certainly a novel interpretation of events.
shareSome of the smartest Germans were exiled before WWII because they were Jewish.
The average German is all beer and bratwurst.
Naah! "Beer and bratwurst" went to the new world long before that.
Look at us(US of A) now?
OT: When poor - you'll do a lot of things. Do try sometime..
And the the thing about a: Better/Über man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
Welcome to the club:-( nothing new there.. 2015:-(
Simple answer is that Germans are among the most genetically gifted people in the world. High IQ coupled with a strong work ethic and as much if not more discipline than any race of people on earth. If you ever tour Central and Eastern Europe, one thing you will notice is how advanced areas of Europe that had been settled by Germans are compared to others. The further you get from German influence, the more primitive the culture and level of advancement.
I think I read somewhere that the Germans were the most advanced country in the history of the world in medicine, science, technology, and art (especially music.) Also, Patton said "We beat the wrong enemy."
@firstwinsgop-1.
Thanks for the information. So, it isn't just that the Germans are so gifted, it's Northern Europeans.
Germany had an excellent military, advanced military technology and brilliant generals (for the most part). They had been gearing up for war and producing material for years. The countries that they invaded were mostly on a peacetime footing. Small militaries, weapons left over from WWI, etc. Germany achieved surprise in its first few attacks as well. They never could have won, the US and Soviet Union simply had too many men and manufacturing capacity. Even if the Axis had stood firm, it's two main enemies were just too big.
Oderint Dum Metuant
And British commonwealth forces - don't allow the present to inform your opinions of the past.
shareGerman forces were superior to British in number and equipment, if not for the sheer brilliance of the RAF, Germany might have taken them as well.
Oderint Dum Metuant
They never could have won, the US and Soviet Union simply had too many men and manufacturing capacity
[deleted]
German forces were superior to British in number and equipment,
The population of the world is much higher now than it was then. Germany was the most populous country in Western Europe in 1939.
share1. The memory of WWI was fresh -- and horrifying. France in particular lost a huge percentage of its population in that war. It may have been a disincentive to fight.
2. France was deeply dis-unified at the time -- between socialists on one hand, and far right parties which were antisemitic. Some believe there were French who would prefer to see Hitler win than socialists to rule France (which may explain why France, which was well armed, fell so quickly). No disrespect for the resistance and other French heroes, but France could have put up a better fight.
3. Many of the countries Hitler invaded were also weakened by the long years of economic depression which affected Europe as much as it affected the USA after 1929. Germany overcame that by deficit spending on the military, and paying off debts by plunder.
4. Sheer balls, aka "Blitzkrieg." Hitler surprised the world by moving fast.
5. Most importantly -- your premise that Germany "perhaps should" have won is not justified. It's defeat was actually inevitable for lots of reasons.
--- the Russians deserve most of the credit for winning WWII -- though at huge cost in lives. They rebuilt a new industrial economy in the East in a short time, and by the time they started fighting back were better armed and better led than the Germans. A lot of German troops froze to death, while the Russians sent over white-camouflaged troops on skis. The Allies invasion had more to do with preventing the Russians from taking over all of Europe than it did for knocking out Hitler. The Russians had help, of course (from British code breaking, and USA equipment supplies, as examples).
--- The Nazis were poorly organized -- lots of infighting and lots of incompetence (especially from drug-crazed lunatic Hitler himself). For example, competing teams made many marvelous innovative weapons, but the wrong ones were manufactured, and the competing designs resulted in insufficient resources devoted to any one of them. Hitler wasted resources at Stalingrad because of its symbolic value (the "Stalin" part) instead of focusing on the capital Moscow.
--- Nazi ideology doomed them. The Ukrainians, for example, initially welcomed them as liberators until they were mistreated as "subhumans." They might have joined Hitler if it mean liberation from Russia. Kicking out Germany's Jewish scientists also doomed Hitler.
--- The Nazis spent as much as rocket weapons, which has a trivial effect on the war, as the USA did on the atomic bomb. Even if the Nazis won, six months later they would have lost in a plutonium haze.
The WWII story is a story of horror, but there is a certain poetic satisfaction the USA bomb effort succeeded exactly because it was a motley crew of peoples of many nationalities and religious backgrounds, but in the USA tradition they got along gloriously -- exactly the opposite of Nazi fantasies of strength through racial and cultural uniformity.
Tilyou1.
You make many good points and I agree with most of them. Perhaps it was, as you say, inevitable that Germany would lose the war. You said that the Russians deserve most of the credit for winning WWII. I can't say I disagree but they only did it with the huge support from the U.S. in weapons, tanks, etc. American's most famous General said: "We beat the wrong enemy."
You mentioned that Hitler as drug-crazed. But, according to David Irving (The Faking of Hitler for History,) Hitler did not use drugs, not even a little bit. David used the actual dairy of Hitler's personal physician who referred to him as Patient "A."
You said that WWII is a story of horror. How true.
You wrote:
David Irving (The Faking of Hitler for History)
Based on details in a 47-page American military dossier compiled during the war, Hitler was taking a cocktail of 74 different drugs, including a form of what is now commonly known as crystal meth. He also took "barbiturate tranquilizers, morphine, bulls' semen," according to reports.
The Nazis preached abstinence in the name of promoting national health. But when it came to fighting their Blitzkrieg, they had no qualms about pumping their soldiers full of drugs and alcohol. Speed was the drug of choice, but many others became addicted to morphine and alcohol... Pervitin, a stimulant commonly known as speed today, was the German army's -- the Wehrmacht's -- wonder drug.
Tilyou1.
Well, it's hard to argue with someone who is so knowledgeable about the subject. It's true that David Irving is known as a Holocaust denier and a racist. But, it's also true that he wrote a best seller before his reputation slipped. Even his detractors admit his research is impeccable. His book about Hitler's doctor details everything. It even has Hitler's cardiograms.
So, I'd be interested in knowing your opinion on Patton's remark that we beat the wrong enemy. After the war and before Patton's death, everyone was against him. By everyone, I mean: 1. The U.S. Government. They did not want to rock the boat by condoning Patton's remarks. 2. The USSR. Of course, they did not like Patton for obvious reasons. 3. The Jews. Patton made some remarks that made many people label him as a racist. So, it seems that many people and/or groups wanted Patton killed and that's exactly what happened. The audio book "Killing Patton" by Bill O'Reilly is available on youtube and it leads me to believe that he was murdered. By who, I don't know but many people wanted him dead.
1)Irving has some wacked out opinions but his work on Hitler is considered to academic quality
2)Most large militaries in WWII experimented with giving drugs to some of their solders, the Germans no more or less.
3) Hitler was able to achieve what he did because he was brilliant. Yes he was also evil, more racist than most in an age when everyone was racist and nationalist.
He had the best diplomatic sense of any European leader in the 1930's. He was able to play Chamberlin like a fiddle, neutralizing Britain in the late 1930's, able to get Stalin as an ally by promising half of Poland. He was able to SEQUENCE his moves and leverage Germany's position.
He in fact was a military innovator, and understood military strategy BETTER than most of his generals. Yes he had only been a corporal and that led the Prussian dominate military general officers, who envisage repeating static warfare of WWI to mock him. But it was precisely his experience in the trenches that led him to support mechanized thrusts and integration of airpower -- specially concentrations of airpower and mechanized thrust. The Prussian military leadership was not supportive of that.
That is how he was able to defeat the largest army in Europe, the French, in days.
Also most people here seem unaware that not only did he have the Soviets initially, but when he did attack the Soviets later on, more Ukrainians fought on his side than on the Soviet side, as did many Baltics and Caucus countries that wanted out from under Russia. he also had Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, most Albanians and Croats on his side.
The first Americans killed by Axis troops in the European Theater were killed by French Vichy troops shelling landing forces in Morocco,
hitler may have been a diplomatic genius, or maybe just a crazy guy who kept upping the ante until the other players folded. militarily he wasn't all that.
tactically, it was guderian that developed the blitzkrieg tactics that knocked out poland, france, and almost the soviets. at least hitler was smart enough to recognize the potential of guderian's methods - probably because they seemed insanely bold (which fit his temperament perfectly).
strategically, he made many grave errors. hitler wanted to punish britain and bomb them into submission. the battle of britain resulted, a costly defeat for germany. if properly reinforced, the afrika corps could quite possibly have knocked the british out of egypt, crippling them and opening up a southern front into the ussr. his mismanagement of the invasion of russia bogged down a mobile army in urban warfare in stalingrad, and indecision diverted crucial forces (and wasted vital fuel) at crucial times. his battle of the bulge was a fiasco with little to no chance of success. insisting that unstoppable jet fighters be used as ineffective bombers. not supporting promising anti-aircraft guided missile programs. demanding tanks so huge and expensive that they couldn't be made in numbers enough to matter - or work without breaking down. dismissing or executing talented generals and administrators who questioned his "wisdom". turning eager allies like the ukrainians into bitter foes.
the list goes on and on....
and yet, he didn't let guderian attack moscow when he had the chance. If he did, this war may have turned out differently.
shareor maybe not, i don't think that's quite as clear cut as the ones i listed. but you can add that to the list of goofs, too.
shareIt was a massive mistake. If Guderian took Moscow theres a chance the Russians would've capitulated, especially if Stalin was killed or captured.
I'll give you two more big goofs:
1. Hitler not instructing the Japanese to wage war on Russia, instead of the United States. This way, Germany and Japan could have pincer attacked the Russians on two fronts, and surely win by conquest or capitulation. In fact, Stalin was expecting this to happen until he received word from a top spy in the Japanese government that Japan had no intention to attack Russia. Thats when Stalin mobilized his eastern divisions to the West and turned the tide of the war.
2. Hitler declaring war on the USA without even an afterthought. This did him no favours, why make such a misguided decision only he knows.
if guderian took moscow...you might have had stalingrad a year earlier than they did - there were still powerful russian forces in the field and germany was in no way ready to supply an army that far afield. using guderian's army to destroy those russian forces wasn't a bad move. stalin wasn't about to stick around and get captured, anyways.
the japanese weren't about to attack the soviets again. when they did that before they were spanked handily, and the russians had enough forces in the east to knock the japanese out of manchuria and put the whole china front in danger. even if japan "wins", siberia is a long way from linking up with panzers.
it was foolish to declare war on the usa, but probably didn't much matter in the long run. the usa would have intervened in europe eventually the way things were going, and weren't ready to act on that front for well over a year anyways. japan would have gone down a bit faster, freeing british colonial troops and more russian eastern forces for use against germany.
- the Russians deserve most of the credit for winning WWII -- though at huge cost in lives. They rebuilt a new industrial economy in the East in a short time, and by the time they started fighting back were better armed and better led than the Germans. A lot of German troops froze to death, while the Russians sent over white-camouflaged troops on skis. The Allies invasion had more to do with preventing the Russians from taking over all of Europe than it did for knocking out Hitler. The Russians had help, of course (from British code breaking, and USA equipment supplies, as examples).
If Hitler listened to his generals, he would have soundly defeated the russians before they could get a chance to fully mobilize.
shareI admit to not having read all the pages in this thread but only the first two.
So the question is: how did the germans do it; and yes I am 2cnd generation post II_WW
What dazzles me is that no one has mentioned the forces of propaganda that has been used in order to create the urgency for 'joining the movement' ruling the world...
This is a movie forum, is it not? Go on asking yourself how much ideology is driving your favorite movies ... What do believe / disbelieve in and how do you use media to cementing / questioning your personal believes. And there you have it: there is a need to believe in something that exceeds your being.
The force of imagination &, in consequence, the aesthetic symbolism of ideas is equally potent as military operations. The Nazis made masterful decisions in regard to that. The us of paroles and images is outstanding. 'Ein Volk, ein Führer', 'Arbeit macht frei', not to talk about the heavy leather coats and the Totenkopf-Division; all is nailed to the power that a lost & struggling individual can be part of joining the crowd ...
This is what the movie is all about: the struggles of individuals with their believe systems ... and the will to sacrifice to that ...
Now the more interesting question is: what do sacrifice in order to continue believing? This is the question the movie raises for me ...
Today it seems not so much to join a 'Führer' but the freedom of choice?
One brand of ice cream over the other?
And where is your happiness / aka 'good life' situated in all of that? On what bases do you (re)act?
History has a tendency to repeat itself ...
What dazzles me is that no one has mentioned the forces of propaganda that has been used in order to create the urgency for 'joining the movement' ruling the world...In the United States, we should be able to see how the connections among Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, the Soros family, the CPUSA and the Weather Underground factor into today's question, albeit cinema isn't the primary mechanism, yet that's what the less connected Michael Moore was for at one time. It's all about creating narratives, misrepresenting facts or just blatantly telling lies to scare people into taking drastic actions. share
This is a movie forum, is it not? Go on asking yourself how much ideology is driving your favorite movies ... What do believe / disbelieve in and how do you use media to cementing / questioning your personal believes. And there you have it: there is a need to believe in something that exceeds your being.
The force of imagination &, in consequence, the aesthetic symbolism of ideas is equally potent as military operations. The Nazis made masterful decisions in regard to that. The us of paroles and images is outstanding. 'Ein Volk, ein Führer', 'Arbeit macht frei', not to talk about the heavy leather coats and the Totenkopf-Division; all is nailed to the power that a lost & struggling individual can be part of joining the crowd ...
This is what the movie is all about: the struggles of individuals with their believe systems ... and the will to sacrifice to that ...
Now the more interesting question is: what do sacrifice in order to continue believing? This is the question the movie raises for me ...
Today it seems not so much to join a 'Führer' but the freedom of choice?
One brand of ice cream over the other?
And where is your happiness / aka 'good life' situated in all of that? On what bases do you (re)act?
History has a tendency to repeat itself ...
My answer is that the world was still weary from WWI. No one wanted another fight. That let Nazi Germany get a foothold. Once it became clear that their goal was nothing short of total domination, some countries reacted (like Great Britain) while others just tried to avoid the whole thing--like us in the U.S.
The Germans of the time felt they had been wronged, by the Jews and by the world at large. So they threw themselves into the industry of war. German manufacturing allowed them to take superiority over land, sea and air.
It's my personal feeling that if Japan had not bombed Pearl Harbor, Germany would have won. Because U.S. isolationist policy made it so we would not intercede because WWII was a "European Problem."
Pearl Harbor was the kick in our ass that finally got us up and moving. But our military infrastructure was still nonexistent. We needed time to prepare.
At the time, Germany already had allies in South America. If not for Pearl Harbor, we very likely would have face invasion from the south and, without the proper infrastructure, we may well have lost.
People (like some of the commenters in this thread) think the U.S. was always a military superpower, but that isn't true. We had to be dragged into both wars. The real heroes, to me, of the second world war are the British people. Their endurance, their courage, stalled Germany and kept the attention of Hitler off of us.
The Germans were right in that they were unfairly treated after WWI as the reparations demanded by the French just about bankrupted Germany, which then looked for a scapegoat and found one in the Jews. Hitler came along with a promise to 'Make Germany Great Again' and the impoverished Germany people found their savior and rallied to the party. History does repeat itself unfortunately.
share"It's my personal feeling that if Japan had not bombed Pearl Harbor, Germany would have won."
Well, that's your personal feeling then, I suppose. Historians unanimously say that Germany was already as good as defeated by the time the US joined the war; their army was stretched too thin, the Battle of Britain had failed badly leaving them with no possibility to do anything against the British military and, most importantly, Germany simply had no hope of defeating the USSR. What US entry into Europe DID achieve was:
1) sped up Germany's inevitable defeat considerably, likely saving many lives, possibly millions.
2) prevent the USSR from advancing into Western Europe farther than Berlin; the East and West were both already anticipating the Cold War during the final days of WWII.
3) With their plants and factories unharmed by war, and their equipment new and up-to-date, ease the economic pain of the war, speeding up the European economic recovery later encouraged by President Truman.