WHY DID THEY LOSE?

>Had the best K:D ratio
>Had the best weapons
>Had the best tanks
>Had the fastest aircraft

So how did NatSoc Germany lose the war? Was it just simply a numbers game? Poor leadership? Industrial output couldn't match the Allies?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arracourt
youtube.com/watch?v=htUbL166axQ
nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/slaves-georgetown-university.html
youtube.com/watch?v=PtIi8QR5Mzs
youtube.com/watch?v=Uo-UXZ-1ups
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

((()))

Germany+Japan vs the entire world. Yeah

(((Adolf Hitler))) is your answer

Because back then Americans loved their country and FDR was the greatest president ever.

When the Americans got involved Germany didn't stand a chance

Tactical error. Invading Russia while in the middle of a war in Western Europe, trying to force England's surrender by bombing alone.

If he had waited until later to invade Russia and instead put his resources into a full-on invasion of England... Well, who knows how things would've turned out.

Zerg rushed

there are some big things and many small things that combined together and created defeat.

the most obvious big things is that whole world teamed on germany, while at the same time axis fought on their own and didnt cooperate (like Japs didnt attack Soviet union and dragged usa into the war instead, or mussolini attacking greece and halting barbarossa for 5 weeks).
The smaller things are often more of technical aspects. One of them is german emphasis on overprecision of their war machined and disregarding numbers, adolf constantly fucking up plans of their generals, shit logistics during offense into soviet union, because russians used narrower tracks and germans had to either create completely new railroad along the way or build shitloads of new train carriages and trains and many more aspects.

but after war, everybody is general, and they probably did as good as it gets (except for mussolini. he fucked up everything)

I have no idea.

more like the zerg rushing/blitzkrieg backfired.

Hitler likes to mess in the affairs of the military even though he had no experience of grand strategy etc.

It's no wonder his generals were pissed at him and wanted to kill him and dethrone the SS.

So you think Germany should have invaded Britain before dealing with the Commies?

>Invading Russia while in the middle of a war in Western Europe

This. They outstretched too far into Russian Territory trying to take down Moscow during the winter, when the Soviets had been prepared with Winter Gear.

Being simultaneously pushed back by the Soviets and Roosevelt forcing Japans hand, in turn making them join the War, is what made Germany lose.

To be honest, I don't think the Germans would've ever done a full-blown invasion on England. Didn't they first start by bombing UK military bases?

Hitler did conquer basically all of Europe within 2 years though...

They never changed tactics and had a one balled spastic in charge of EVERYTHING

Taking Moscow is such a bad idea. That hasn't worked since before it was settled properly.

Especially during the Winter. What a doofus.

Hitler was a shitty commander. Invading Russia, declaring war on the U.S, the list goes on and on. If their commander was somebody competent then they could have had a fighting chance.

>Thinks K/D is important
>"best weapons" doesn't matter as everyone had guns, could have won if fighting Zulus
>Best tanks = Most tanks?
>Faster the more fuel burned, Mustangs were better for assisting war crimes. Also slow as shit sword fish destroyed their best ship so fast means fuck all.

>So how did NatSoc Germany lose the war? Was it just simply a numbers game? Poor leadership? Industrial output couldn't match the Allies?
Yes to all of these as well as shit allies, piss poor strategy, poor location at the centre of Europe, and a retarded ideology which was built for war which they can't even win so whats the point.

TL;DR The Nazis are shit, Hitler is shit, National socialism is shit, Germany is shit.

Good point about the numbers.

Germany definitely had the best tanks but they took a lot of time and effort to produce whereas the T34 or the Sherman were relatively quick and easy to build.

>Hitler did...
He conquered the Sudetenland and Austria diplomatically because the British and French turned a blind eye to him. Everything else was done by his Wehrmacht generals.

The early years of German victory was because the British were not ready to fight the Germans and the Maginot line was a complete failure and a misreading of the abilities of the tank by the French military. The capitulation of France was the most stunning victory of Nazi Germany but it wasn't surprising. Every other country in Eastern Europe were essentially waiting to be taken by the Germans.

Strategic mistakes and insufficient mobilization in the beginning.
>was it just simply a numbers game
No.
Neither was it just Hitler, but he did make some idiotic decisions and started micromanaging troops more and more, unlike Stalin who progressively allowed his commanders more freedom.
Germany and Japan didn't face entire world.
Germany basically faced USSR until 1943, and even then Italy was a secondary front with not many troops involved.
So you could say it was USSR and Germany until late 1944.
>b-but muh Lend Lease
And Germany employed slave labor and stole resources across almost entire Europe.
Reasons for German defeat were mistakes they made, not numerical superiority of their opponents, which only existed in terms of troops deployed (6.5 million compared to 4.3 million in January 1944), not in terms of manpower potential (Axis actually had bigger potential than USSR without occupied territories).
Soviets simply mobilized more successfully in every aspect.

werent kraut tanks made with shitty alloys by the end because of steel shortages? i seem to recall something of the sort

>Invading Russia.
Russia was planning on getting involved in the war, Hitler was trying to preempt the attack. Dumb move, yes, but not unjustified.

>Declaring war on the U.S.
This one is the fault of Japan. Japan was invading most of the pacific while Germany was busy in Europe, but they were afraid that the U.S. might get involved, so they decided "hey, how about we destroy a single port in Hawai'i, that ought to put America out of action". Didn't work out for them, and Germany was only brought in because they had an alliance (thought it provided the perfect casus belli, since Roosevelt wanted to get involved in the war anyway).

Mostly Hitler's fault. If he hadn't been such a sperg he should have just stopped at Austria and the Rhineland and focused on ruling for a while, maybe forged an alliance with the US against the Soviets.

Of course K:D ratio is important. If you kill more than the other guy does he's more likely to run out of men :D

>had the best tanks
No they didn't, Panzer III and IV were inferior to T-34's in most characteristics, excluding radios, which though important aren't really tank related.
Later tanks like Panther or Tiger were pretty good but by then it didn't matter.
Taking Moscow was an excellent idea, since Moscow is a transportation hub, and it would cripple Soviets.

Not as important as crippling their industrial capacity.

Yeah something like that. By the end of the war for every Tiger or Panther Fritz produced, the Reds produced 5 T34's.

The German tanks were more complicated to build and needed more raw resources.

wow op you must be the cod player in your neighborhood.

all of those stats are wrong (except fastest aircraft). But basically what you said: Industrial output couldn't match the Allies, and the Germans were fighting way too many countries at once

Fugg :DDD.
2 world wars would beg to differ.

We were cutting off Japan's oil supply. They were like fuck we're going to run out if we don't do something so they attacked Pearl Harbor where they thought we had most of our Pacific Fleet.

They knew they would have to completely defeat us within 6 months. By then our military industry would be in full gear and would be just making too many ships and planes for them to compete.

If you kill your enemies they win.

t-34 and shermans were much more effective in combat then anything germany had. they should have cranked out nothing but stugs and hetzers
>thinking real combat is like world of tanks

Tbh, all the loans he took to finance his meme projects were going to bit him sooner than later. The soviets, the americans, the english. His policies were unsustainable no matter what naziboos says. If he hadnt gone to war it would be Weimar recession all over again.

>>Had the best K:D ratio
You can only die so many times when the fiend has unlimited manpower
>>Had the best weapons
Kar98k's can't really do much in urban combat compared to Russian submachineguns
>>Had the best tanks
Tanks that took long to build and less finished ones would often break down while the US would be able to produce more Sherman cans than Germans could make Panthers
>>Had the fastest aircraft
Assault aircraft, meant for attack or aiding in the blitz, not for defence

no matter what the situation is, quantity will win over quality everyday.

...

>has unlimited manpower
But this is the biggest bullshit spouted here that totally ignores reality.
Axis powers together had bigger manpower potential than USSR which lost Ukraine, Belarus and huge chunks of Russia.
Not to mention there was shitload of volunteers from non-Axis countries fighting in the East.
Soviets didn't win because they threw men at Germans, they won because they fought better and mobilized better overall, and recovered from their mistakes while exploiting German mistakes.

Germans had more submachine guns than Russkis

The jet aircraft could have been used to attack Allied bomber formations surely?

Simply. Numbers.

Germany had some 100 divisions
Russia had some 800 divisions. Not just conscripts either, but trained divisions.

Due to Versailles treaty, Germany started the war with the WORST tanks. Their tanks were worse than the French tanks (but their strategy was better). All the tank testing they did was in secret in the USSR, so the USSR had all their tank data. The German tanks couldn't even pen the Russian tanks, and had far worse engines.

The Germans eventually surpassed the Russian tanks, but by then it was too little too late.

Germany couldn't have beat Russia. They played everything right, but it was impossible from the start.

They were forced into Barbarosa when the USSR threatened a second Finnish war, annexation of the baltic states, and annexation of romania.

The only way they could have won, would have been if Britain and USA were out of the war, and if Japan attacked from the East. Hopefully then, Russia's logistics would have been too stretched out and they would have collapsed.

There are shitload of historical events that totally disprove that.
Quantity has a quality of it's own but it all depends on how you use it.

A Sherman v a Panther in the field was a non-contest.

too greedy, never get too greedy.

Germany got jets way too late for it to matter. Maybe if they had them in 1940 it wouldve made a bigger difference

Germany spent attention on France and Europe in general
Brits were also hostile and always foiling proceedings

no matter what happens, if you keep throwing an unlimited amount of something at someone, they will win. The russians had millions of soldiers at their disposal, thats why they did so well

This

shremans RAPED panthers when they had the chance to be on the defensive.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arracourt

>Hitler took out loans
Amazing ignorance.

Germany had no credit. He couldn't have taken out loans if he wanted to. Hitler fixed the economy by implementing new policies.

It was too late. The (((politicians))) and (((financiers))) of Britain, USA and Soviet Union all wanted war. They were just biding time because their countries weren't sufficiently armed due to public opinion against a war with Germay.

War was inevitable though.

2 front war was the biggest mistake

especially the fact that you cant blitz russia like fucking france or boland b/c its so fucking big.

should have either war England/US OR Russia not both

>Germany had some 100 divisions
>Russia had some 800 divisions. Not just conscripts either, but trained divisions.
In February 1943 Germans had 195 divisions on East, not counting Axis formations, which were quite sizeable (Hungarians and Romanians).
Soviets had around 500 divisions at point of war.
And Soviet rifle division was almost twice smaller than German infantry division. Just counting divisions doesn't tell the whole story.
I already gave you numbers for January 1944, 4.3 million Axis against 6.5 million Soviets. And that was 1944, difference was lower in 1943 and especially 1942. At the start Axis had numerical advantage.

Durability and firepower. Those who can make the biggest bang for the buck.

France was defeated in 1940 and after that garrisoned by second-line troops.
Africa involved several divisions, and so did Balkans.
But main effort and overwhelming amount of troops were deployed in East.
Except I already explained that USSR had lesser manpower potential than Axis powers.
Soviets literally lost almost 60 million citizens in first year of war, because Germans occupied Belarus, Ukraine and parts of Russia.

They kept investing in meme weapons long after they lost the ability to afford that luxury. Yes they were cool as shit and advanced technology many times over. But having 1000 extra tanks would've been more useful that a fucking plane that couldn't fly without technology from 75 years in the future.

Mate...I am sorry to say this...but Britain did a lot to fuck this situation up.

Watch first two minutes to understand:

youtube.com/watch?v=htUbL166axQ

>Invaded Russia
>Stalin sent tens of millions of troops to zerg Hitler

What and America didn't?

We're both guilty bro.

Isn't it common knowledge that they lost because Hitler fucked himself by putting WAY too many resources into marching through siberian wasteland to Moscow, where they got their shit pushed in? Obviously there's other factors but that one was by far the biggest.

Or maybe I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, this is just what I gleaned listening to people talk about WW2.

Because the war was a meme.

They werent supposed to win.

If he had waited until later they wouldn't have got half as far as they did, and Europe would've gone full commie instead of half. Stain was preparing to fuck over Hitler from the get go, and Germany knew this.

1. There is no "the generals". There are different generals, each with different ideas. It was Hitler's responsibility as chief of the armed forces to determine which strategy to favor.

2. The initial plans for the conquest of France were literally nothing more than a trench warfare repeat of WW1. Hitler threw a child's book at the general who suggested this and told him to read it and come up with more creativity. The strategy that Hitler favored ended up being the won that won the battle for France.

3. Moscow was heavily fortified and surrounded by divisions that would have CRUSHED the Wehrmacht if they tried to take the city. Aside from that, all the major industry had been evacuated to the Urals, so there was nothing even in Moscow anyways. The oilfields of the Caucasus were essential for the war logistics of both sides, and capturing it was the only feasible decision. Once again, another strategy Hitler favored that was correct.

This is a thread for civilised peoples only, Paco. You're not welcome here.

>drafting everyone to cook up the unemployment numbers
>confiscating properties and assets of jews like a commie faggot.
>investing into the military that does not give profits

Whats the next meme?, that war was forced upon them and six million germans were being killed by evil poles?

Siberia is way, way east of Moscow. Look at a map Burger.

There is a difference between conscripts and trained reserves.

By 1943, most of Germany's trained reserves were exhausted. Germany was limited from having more than some 100,000 trained soldiers by Versailles. Even though Hitler tore this up, Germany's military might never truly recovered from WW1. Hitler instituted heavy conscription towards the end of the war, but they were undertrained and undersupplied. Not a match for a soviet division.

Germany could easly win if only Adolph wasn't fucking insane.

What would you say was more important to capture, Moscow or the Caucas oil fields?

>Had the best weapons
>Had the best tanks
Lol, also mediocre leadership. And I'm well aware of the irony of an eyetie saying that.

There is but Germans had qualitative advantage up until 1944.
>but they were undertrained and undersupplied
So were Soviets, and they had to do catching up while fighting for their lives.
Soviet officer corps suffered heavily with purges, and then early reversals after German attack.
The fact they recovered and prevailed was amazing. But this board is full of historical illiterates who have no idea about Eastern Front besides memes they heard.

His insanity also helped him get elected and start the war in the first place though

>Didn't they first start by bombing UK military bases?
yes, but then the brits dropped some bombs on berlin and hitler went full retard and decided the focus should be on london.
source is my ass, but im pretty sure i read this somewehere.

Amazing you can post on 4chins under 10ft of rubble, Maurizio.

Thats a really crappy thing to say.

GERMANY HAD:
- no coal production,
- little petroleum,
- little food rations,
- little military equipment and resources overall,
- Hitler's leadership skills (which were non-existent),
- fighted against basically whole world.
GERMANY HAD NO CHANCE OF WINNING in a world where the US supplied the UK and the USSR through the Lend-Lease.

> fail to ally or at least NAP with UK
> fail by allying with Italy
> fail harder by allying with Japan
> fail to keep US out of the war because lol Japan ally stronk
> fail to match USSR in armor and artillery development
> further fail by not driving all-out to Moscow to kill the Stalin
> even further fail by oppressing Ukrainians instead of using them as cannon fodder
> fail to adopt a decent but cheap medium tank
> fail to adopt the Panzerfaust soon enough
> fail to develop radar soon enough
> fail to develop nukes
> fail by instead developing giga-expensive rockets and NVG and other useless shit
gee, I dunno

If you're referring to Italy you had both awful leadership at most levels, you were badly equipped and soldiers weren't really motivated.
Italians still fought rather well on several occasions where they had proper leadership and at least some necessary equipment.
It's just that Rommel was an arrogant faggot who blamed all reverses on Italian troops, despite the fact they played important part in his victories.

atleast we have an excuse to be guilt tripped

you get guilt tripped by slaves and illegals now...

nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/slaves-georgetown-university.html

this just run on germanys biggest newsshow

holy shit murrica ahahahaha

> war every major nation in the world
> why did they lose? :(

Gee, I wonder.

You're a german Sup Forums just fuck off and never come again

the west may be screwed, but America will last longer than Europe. Enjoy Islam

slavery is still a somewhat legit reason for guilt trip

what about sweden?

>- no coal production,
What? Germans had coal in abundance.
>- little petroleum,
Romania. But yeah.
>- little food rations,
That's what the East was for.
>- little military equipment and resources overall,
Compared to who?
>- fighted against basically whole world.
Fighting against basically USSR and RAF/USAAF until 1944.

Did you watch the first couple of minutes of the video?

If there is one thing that we can agree now is that this time will be different. Europe should never fight against each other....NEVER AGAIN. The Western world must unite against the third world and assume its right-full place.

The time has come for Europeans to become the masters of the universe once more.

Oil fields, because of the logistics problems Germany was facing. They were running out of fuel, and since their entire strategy revolved around motorized mobility, they couldn't have won without it.

The Russians were also heavily motorized and they had the same needs, and it would have been crippling to them if they had been robbed of it. It also wouldn't hurt to capture the black sea.

Moscow was a railway nexus, and a symbolic target. But that's pretty much it. It was also impossible to capture due to the overwhelming forces stationed around it.

>the US would've start the Lend-Lease program regardless
>Stalin and everyone would've done the same with Moscow as they did during Napoleon's campaign
>also, Germany had no resources to keep pushing east
>Ukrainians wanted to be independent, they didn't want to fight the German fight
>Germany had, again, no resources to mass-produce tanks or anything
>they wouldn't have developed the nukes regardless, because the best scientists for developing the nukes were Jewish and they had already emmigrated to the US

I'm only joking m8.

Pls don't cut my heart out :D :D :D

>The Russians were also heavily motorized
Not really, and neither were Germans. They mostly used horses for logistics.
Only Brits and Americans were mostly motorized forces in WW2.
>But that's pretty much it.
Cutting someone's supply lines is pretty much the essence of warfare. You're making it look like capturing Moscow wasn't important.

oh just wait what Hillarity (a big friend and she adore Merkel) have for you in the next ATLEAST 4years my friend

but you probably still believe Trump will win...

>and instead put his resources into a full-on invasion of England... Well, who knows how things would've turned out.

They'd have been sunk in the water by the Royal Navy, and then Stalin would overrun Europe, cutting through the depleted Germans.

The only thing true from that list is the K:D

>What is the Vietnam war?

No, I dont think Trump will win. Like I already said the west is screwed

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA youtube.com/watch?v=PtIi8QR5Mzs

youtube.com/watch?v=Uo-UXZ-1ups

THIS is your elite! Get fucked, Amerifat! Thanks for (((liberating))) the world!!!! :DDDDDDD

>Win lane lose game

>60%

Haha don't w-worry guys we've got this (eads burgerr)

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
Seems like it was some kind of Armed conflict is southeast Asia

>but you probably still believe Trump will win...

I do. Our Aussie friend will save the Western world :^)

>Germans had coal in abundance
They had, but every mine was closed due to lack of manpower. They simply drafted them.
>Romania
Germany didn't receive enough/anything from Romania. They were running short on fuel, on everything. It's documented.
>That's what the East was for
What? Do you mean lands? Where the Russians were strongly defensive? Germans had to LITERALLY use their own soldiers and army horses to farm the crops.
>Compared to who?
Russia, the US.
>Fighting against basically USSR and RAF/USAAF until 1944
That's like, the whole world.