Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front

Previous poster had it right.
The basic facts are they were in a hopeless numbers game because of Hilter.  Their only hope would have been to maintain peace with one of the main allies.  If they had not attacked the Soviets, they could have concentrated on other fronts while keeping a keen watch on Stalin.  Stalin may even have aided them for a time, but he was just like Hitler, in that they could not help themselves when it came to critical thinking.  Decisions were made out of rage and paranoia, rather than logic presented by their generals.  Germany had one social advantage when facing the other allies, the allied leaders placed a higher value on having troops survive to fight again.  Hitler and Stalin could not have cared less about their people(IMO) it was all about their legacy.  The US economic ability made it inevitable that Germany would lose, because the axis did not have the capability to attack/harass it.  The endless supply of war materials would bury any enemy, no matter the quality of their people or weapons.  None of the main combatants were pushovers.

MRX wrote:
  The Russian winnter was very... nasty very cold, an d the military police of the Nazy Germany were realy pack of idiots.
  For more detalys investgate Sven Hassel's books. There it's only about the Members of the Heer(german ground army) and theyr's mizerabil (or not) lifes

Sven hassel is a fraud, in case you didn't know.
Fun books, but deeply inaccurate - eg a Penal battalion is issued with Tiger tanks?? yeah, RIGHT.

I agree with Red Baron and EasyWay91, your saying it right, guys!:D
And although not completely correct, redtail666 is partly right about the issue with the two leaders. ;D

Headlock, kinda strange reply, nvm. ???

Germany was defeated because of massive allied aid given to the USSR, a long with having to fight on several fronts. The soviet union has mythologized the eastern front and the western world has bought the cool aid. Without the US, the Soviet Union could have hoped for a stalemate at best, because Stalin's interference with the Red Army greatly hampered it's fighting capabilities. Soviet figures, which are rigged to begin with, show statistics greatly in favor of Germany. The wermacht was a far more competant than the red army. this is despite Germany starting the war with outdated, inferior equipment and armor, and hardly using a fraction of it's industrial capacity until the second half of the war. despite hitler being a homocidal monster, he was much more competant than stalin, and not an inept maniac until the very end of the war. documentaries always blame germany's defeat on hitler, which is slightly true, but not very true. John Mosier is probably the best historian that corrects the war's record. My opinion could be wrong, but since I do not accept doctored soviet data or narrative, I doubt my opinion will change. Given the circumstances, Russia, not communism, could have crushed germany. THe soviet union was almost dismembered because it chose socialism. Without being propped up continuously by the allies, hitler's evil empire may have triumphed.

I'm not at all agreeing with you, but that's alright, but be warned, your now saying stuff which cannot be proven to be true nor false, be cautious with what your saying, bro.

Truly so.
Besides, saying "I ignore some point of view, because it's all crap" sounds odd. As if you are saying, that all SU history books are completely made up of lies, while some western are so true and so much closer to reality.
Ever considered that every side did and does put a lot of effort in making propaganda?

apologies, we're drifting off, although this is at least for a part related to the topic.

well I could be wrong. But the figures often don't make sense. I will try to find out which it was. THere was a battle where the Soviet data claims 88,000 dead russians, 55,000 dead Germans an 500 destroyed German tanks. THis seems completely impossible. No tank losses for the Red Army? Krushev himself made some statements implying that the soviet figures were cooked. Like I said, given the very bad economic and industrial decisions tat Germany made, I couldn't possibly imagine Germany having any hope against a Czarist, or White Government in place. Any sort of German victory against that would still be in question if Germany made equivalent decisions.
All of the sides promoted propaganda, but the USSR was the only one to do so with actual data, and it is the only one to still be believed today. There was no lock down on published information in Britain, the US, or West Germany. This is why the US can account for nearly all of it's casualties and actual product produced in factories. The USSR either had, Russia still has, them on lock down, or they simply do not exist, and the data available is estimated, or made up, probably something inbetween those two.

Last edited January 17, 2011 at 6:21 PM by Imperium

The USSR data are very hard to call 'real', mostly because of the propaganda, but not all data was false.

Imperium wrote:
All of the sides promoted propaganda, but the USSR was the only one to do so with actual data, and it is the only one to still be believed today.

AFAIK, according to official media reports during the war in Vietnam US forces had the entire population of Vietnam killed for at least three times. :)

Peh, In WW2 the only propaganda in American was Buggs Bunny hitting Hitler in the head with a mallet :P

Seeme wrote:
Peh, In WW2 the only propaganda in American was Buggs Bunny hitting Hitler in the head with a mallet :P

Actually, not... See some anti japanese american war films of the time. I recall several, where those were actually called "monkeys".

I saw those too.  And the disturbing thing is...Bugs Bunny was the one who was saying that stuff  lol

This is not about Vietnam people, stick to the topic, please.

If y'all don't mind me dropping in - The answer to your question is quite simple: Germany lost because Russia won.

yes, and we're discussing what kind of things Germany ... up, and how the USSR won, despite their losses :P

Well, i think the Japanese are partly to blame...

Oh? Could you be so kind to share the 'why' with us, please? :)

Well, i'm no history buff, but as far as i know, the Japanese attacked Hawaii and Alaska, bringing America into the war. And the Americans decided to deal with the Germans before the Japanese. So the Germans were fighting a tough enemy on the Western as well as the Eastern front, stretching their resources pretty thin...

Correct me if i'm wrong on any of that...

Actually US defeated both countries nearly at the same time. Germany 5th May, Japan 2nd September. They didn't had to even move troops from Europe.
Japanese did well choosing not to attack USSR. Two reasons: 1. How can navy-based army attack Siberia?? Ships would be useful only in attacking Sachalin or Kamchatka. Nothing more. Also Japanese theory of liberation the "enslaved" nations of Indonesia. And create area of influence there.

Yeah, i realize the Allies defeated Japan shortly after Germany. But from what i've seen in the many documentaries i have watched, the Americans decided to focus more on the Germans than the Japanese. Also, i think it was the Russians who ultimately defeated Germany...

pariah wrote:
Yeah, i realize the Allies defeated Japan shortly after Germany. But from what i've seen in the many documentaries i have watched, the Americans decided to focus more on the Germans than the Japanese.

Just read into the quantity of US men, fighting each side, add to it the time, when americans arrived to europe, don't forget when US started fighting Japan, and see, that you're all wrong...

EDIT: removed that part about russians,- it doesn't go with my comment  ;D

Last edited January 20, 2011 at 5:02 PM by IJoe

Could you please be more specific?

pariah wrote:
Could you please be more specific?

C'mon man, just search through the net on the points, I listed above... Don't be all that lazy.
I'd be more broad here, but I just don't really have a hell lot of time now, nor do I have a desire to play a history teacher  ;)

Dude, i wouldn't know how to do that. Practically all my knowledge of W.W.II comes from documentaries i borrowed from the library...

pariah wrote:
Well, i'm no history buff, but as far as i know, the Japanese attacked Hawaii and Alaska, bringing America into the war. And the Americans decided to deal with the Germans before the Japanese. So the Germans were fighting a tough enemy on the Western as well as the Eastern front, stretching their resources pretty thin...

Correct me if i'm wrong on any of that...

Somewhat, as Hitler sided with the Japanese and declared War on the US, which wasn't a necessity as Japan had nothing to offer for the German War effort.

Analpirat wrote:

pariah wrote:
Well, i'm no history buff, but as far as i know, the Japanese attacked Hawaii and Alaska, bringing America into the war. And the Americans decided to deal with the Germans before the Japanese. So the Germans were fighting a tough enemy on the Western as well as the Eastern front, stretching their resources pretty thin...

Correct me if i'm wrong on any of that...

Somewhat, as Hitler sided with the Japanese and declared War on the US, which wasn't a necessity as Japan had nothing to offer for the German War effort.

OMG!  ::)
Hitler declared war on the US because of it's material support of the enemies of the reich, and japan was simply seen as a useful ally, that could distract US from war in europe and make it spend their resources elsewhere.

IJoe wrote:

Analpirat wrote:

pariah wrote:
Well, i'm no history buff, but as far as i know, the Japanese attacked Hawaii and Alaska, bringing America into the war. And the Americans decided to deal with the Germans before the Japanese. So the Germans were fighting a tough enemy on the Western as well as the Eastern front, stretching their resources pretty thin...

Correct me if i'm wrong on any of that...

Somewhat, as Hitler sided with the Japanese and declared War on the US, which wasn't a necessity as Japan had nothing to offer for the German War effort.

OMG!  ::)
Hitler declared war on the US because of it's material support of the enemies of the reich, and japan was simply seen as a useful ally, that could distract US from war in europe and make it spend their resources elsewhere.

That doesn't hold any water. The war against Japan would've detracted from the US supplies to Europe and the Soviets without Hitler declaring war on the US.

Edit: Maybe you misunderstand me: I'm saying Germany going to War with the US wasn't necessary and a strategic mistake.

Last edited January 20, 2011 at 5:53 PM by Analpirat

I edited my post to make it clearer. To explain: cephalos said the US entered the War in Europe because Japan attacked Pearl Harbour. That is incorrect and that is what my statements were referring to.

Well, US was doing definitely everything necessary and even more to be considered an enemy of the reich.
Besides (though it's not relevant to the topic, so accept my apologies here), it seems, that Japan was simply forced by the circumstances, ultimately absolutely created by the US alone, to make war on the latter. It appears, that Roosevelt intentionally led this country straight into the war in the pacific, aiming at the spread of US overall influence in that particular region, and in the world , after all. But this is just a point of view (shared by many historians though), and a topic for yet another broad discussion, so don't really mind me saying that.

Well sure they were. But having them (merely) supply your enemies is still better than having them supply your enemies, bomb you and invade your country  ;)
But to realize that required an openess to reality and input from the general staff that Hitler did not possess.

Their part in the war against the reich was rather puny (that would be IMO here) 'till the very D-day.

Well Puny is taking it to the extreme. I don't think one should undervalue all the supplies the Brits and the Soviets received. They didn't pay such a huge price in blood, but without them victory would've come a lot more costly to the soviets (If, Gasp!, at all. But you'll probably try to stone me for that  ;) ).

pariah wrote:
Dude, i wouldn't know how to do that. Practically all my knowledge of W.W.II comes from documentaries i borrowed from the library...

duuude, you got to be kidding? ever heard of google or wikipedia?

Analpirat wrote:
Well Puny is taking it to the extreme. I don't think one should undervalue all the supplies the Brits and the Soviets received. They didn't pay such a huge price in blood, but without them victory would've come a lot more costly to the soviets (If, Gasp!, at all. But you'll probably try to stone me for that  ;) ).

I meant the fighting part, since we were talking about germany declaring war on the US, because it was strongly supporting the enemies of the riech. So the above notice of yours sinks into the cold void ;)

Yeah, Google comes in handy sometimes (emphasis on "sometimes"...). Don't know much about that "Wikipedia" thing, though.

IJoe wrote:

Analpirat wrote:
Well Puny is taking it to the extreme. I don't think one should undervalue all the supplies the Brits and the Soviets received. They didn't pay such a huge price in blood, but without them victory would've come a lot more costly to the soviets (If, Gasp!, at all. But you'll probably try to stone me for that  ;) ).

I meant the fighting part, since we were talking about germany declaring war on the US, because it was strongly supporting the enemies of the riech. So the above notice of yours sinks into the cold void ;)

I wasn't aware there was such a thing as a cold void for posts.
Plus, wars aren't only fought by fighting ;-)

I wonder what would happen if Japan chose to invade the USSR from the East at the height of the German invasion from the West...

Would the USSR still be able to hold off both fronts?  If these guys actually won, we might be living in an extremely racist world now.

I never understood why Hitler decided to join with Japan.  I thought he hated all non-whites?

Chancellor wrote:
I never understood why Hitler decided to join with Japan.  I thought he hated all non-whites?

It's a bit more complicated than that. If you were an Aryan (German, Austrian, Dutchman, Scandinavian etc.) than you were ok, if you were a Russian, you definately weren't ok. Now Italians are by no means what Hitler calls "Aryans", but they were his allies. Hitler may not have been a very practical man in a lot of instances, but in this one I think he was practical, Japan was by far the most powerfull nation in the far east, and Italy had a good foothold in Africa.
Japans ideal (to rid Asia of unfair overrulers) was somewhat in line with that of Hitler, to get rid of the yoke of Versailles and return Germany to it's old former glory.

Yeah, no doubt Hitler would have turned on the Japanese and Italians eventually, just like the Russians.

The defeat of the USSR would've been more likely with Japan joining in, but Japan already attacked the USSR before, and lost all the time (fun fact: it was the fighting against Japan which helped so to speak 'shape' General Zhukov 8)) Germany was the country which had to deliver the biggest en then decisive blow, not any other nation.:P

Basically Germany lost on the Eastern front for a number of reasons.
Most of them stem from the leadership at the time being poor.
(ie Hitler Goering)

The attack on Stalingrad was a step too far with an army stripped of it's panzers and fuel, but then telling the same army to stay in it's position once surrounded was catastrophic.

Lack of proper winter equipment for two years running!
Russia being so damn huuge mean the German supply routes were huge and innefficient.

The Russians made a titanic effort to relocate their populations and build a new industrial area behind lines. Russians were particularly good at masking huge armies from German observers.
With the Majority of the German airforce beaten in the battle of Britain it lost air superiority, allowing Russian airfighters to harass German forces from the skies later on.

German treatment of the local populations was ridiculously harsh and genocidal, which meant a large proportion of their occupied territories had lots of partisan activity.

The Kursk offensive was the turning point, the German forces did not use their favourite tactic well (blitzkrieg) and the Russians had plenty of time to prepare the battlefield with lots of mines and defenses.

Germany tried to eat more than it could chew, and declaring war on USA was incredibly stupid, in fact if the Germans had not done so the USA would have probably not intervened in Europe, or if it had it would have been too late.

That covers it, i suppose ;)

No, sorry. Kursk was in no way the turning point on the Eastern Front. It was already over long before that. Had Kursk succeeded Germany would by no means have won the war, all that would have happened would be that maybe(And I'll stress that) the defeat would not have been as catastrophic. OTOH it could have been even more catastrophic with the US nuking German cities instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Hitler wouldn't have won the war no matter how you slice it, the only reason he got as far as he did was because the Soveits weren't ready.

Well, if i stick to basic options, Germany could've won the war if:

1: the German nuclear project finished before the US.
2: if Hitler actually listened to his officers! :P

Number 1- Defiantly

Number 2- Would of helped a bunch, but 3 Million men vs 15+Million....

As I said before, the only reason he got that far was because he the Soviets weren't ready. On 1943, They had the Army better off in equipment then the Germans. They had no chance from the start.

The Reich Scared away a lot of scientist at the beginning of the war (Including Albert Einstein). If Hitler didn't blame everything on the Jews, maybe half of the scientist would of stayed there, and they would of got it done faster.

They may have scared a lot of scientist away, but Germany was still superior with certain technologies until the very end of the war, take rockets, for example......

damn I'm not in the mood to talk a lot right now :-X

may i remind everyone that this is a discussion about why Germany lost on the eastern front? And the 'they lost because they were fu...ng idiots' story might be partly right, it isn't going to explain everything, so please try to talk about something a little more serious.

Now, can we all please get back to the topic?

Stay on topic guys. You want to argue politics, go somewhere else.