English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

defend your own thoughts. please. thank you.

2007-06-01 06:27:21 · 23 answers · asked by you 6 in Arts & Humanities History

23 answers

Without going into ton's of detail.

The Germans failed to conquer England, before they took on Russia. It's hard enough to fight on one front, let alone two fronts 1,000's of miles apart.

2007-06-01 06:32:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Hitler was too impetuous and believed that he could work out a deal with the British. The Germans could have inflicted a disastrous defeat on the British at Dunkirk, but was hopeful that not slaughtering the BEF would allow an accommodation to be reached. When this didn't happen, he attacked the Soviet Union before finishing off the British, giving him a two-front war. He also got a late start on the campaign, ensuring an encounter with General Winter.

After Pearl Harbor, he declared war on the US - Roosevelt would have had a tough time convincing the American people and Congress to declare war on Germany if Hitler had stated that Japan attacking first did not obligate Germany to enter the conflict under their treaty.

2007-06-01 15:07:28 · answer #2 · answered by Robert S 4 · 1 0

The invasion of Russia pretty much sunk Hitler's chances of a 1,000 years Reich. He fell into the same trap Germany faced in WW I, a two-front war. The strange thing is, Hitler knew better. That's why he signed the non-aggression pact with Stalin before the war. I mean, Russia would be tough to take on even if Germany didn't have a Western front to fight on. The Russian climate & terrain was hostile to invaders & Russia had a seemingly unlimited supply of manpower.

2007-06-01 14:24:23 · answer #3 · answered by BethS 6 · 0 0

They invaded Poland instead of Italy. The war was about the oil fields in Africa and other former Colonial German holdings necessary to their economic health, which were severely strapped by the peace treaty signed after WWI. Italy was a much better position to support Rommel from and prevent a southern invasion of Europe, as well. The Italians never fought as allies to their full potential. In the end Hitler had to move his men in there, but they had already lost the African Campaign and Patton was on his way North.
They also invaded Russia instead of England, the English were on the ropes driven out of France through Dunkirk forced to sneak away on fishing boats. If Hitler had invaded England instead of relying too heavily on the failed bombing of the English into submission, through the air strategy, then he would never have had to violate his peace agreement with Russia, losing his best troops and having nothing left with which to defend France and Germany. The allies were alowed the time they needed to build up invasion forces. Also, they were cruel to certain groups who they removed from society, creating a schism in their forces with the SS, torturing civilians instead of supporting the Weirmarch in the field, until it was too late. Finally they had no clear plan for peace, only war. The very momentum Hitler used to gain power and conquer, in the end crushed him and his nation.

2007-06-01 13:47:19 · answer #4 · answered by Tim O 5 · 0 0

The Germans screwed up when they became over confidant and split their forces so that they could attack Russia. Generally speaking, attacking Russia in winter is a terrible idea. Winter is Russia's best defense really, as it destroys supply lines (too cold to start engines) hypothermia and starvation killed more Germans than bullets. Russia's winter is what stopped Napoleon's armies. That and the Russians are fine with "scorched earth" tactics (burning cropland so that the enemy can't eat the crops). All they have to do is wait until the enemy starts to starve and freeze to death.
They should have waited until they captured Britain to divert their forces toward Russia, That way they could fortify their supply lines and had the supplies and equipment appropriate for Russia.

2007-06-01 13:39:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

There is a very basic principle of warfare. You can't fight an offensive on two different fronts. They didn't finish the Battle of Britain before they went after Africa and Russia. So they fought on three different fronts, plus they had to defend all the lands they conquered in the face of fierce Underground activity. That spread their supply lines much too thin and they couldn't keep their tanks running, soldiers fed (or warm...infamous stories of summer clothes sent to the Eastern Front in the middle of winter are well documented), and they couldn't keep the Resistance from overtaking local sympathies against the Axis.

The most famous revelation to US intelligence came during the Battle of the Bulge when they were capturing very hungry German soldiers and all of the soldiers were carrying large tubes around their necks. It took a while for the US to realize it, but they carried the hoses to syphon gasoline from abandoned vehicles because their own supply depots were too far from the front. We won the Battle of the Bulge by stopping their troops from having the ability to resupply by blowing the supply depot.

2007-06-01 13:36:33 · answer #6 · answered by GenevievesMom 7 · 2 1

Their diplomacy sucked. They were overly reliant on Europe not standing up to them because of the trauma of WWI still being fresh in everyone's minds and not wanting another one. Instead of building stronger ties, they kept being belligerent to the nations around them trusting only in their own strength.
If they were clever they would have played France and Britain off against the USSR. They should have let the soviets invade Poland but not invaded themselves.
They should have supported an arab insurgency against the British in the middle east.
Basically they thought if they stuck hard and fast enough they could win on their own; they were wrong and should have developed allies in western europe.
Two countries who were natural allies to Germany were Finland and Spain, but they never became close because of German foreign policy/diplomacy.

2007-06-01 23:41:03 · answer #7 · answered by cernunnicnos 6 · 0 0

The Nazis had no "friends" except the other fascists in Italy. Even the Italians didn't like fascism, as they eventually beheaded Mussolini. Whenever Hitler would make a deal with the leader of any country, he would eventually renege on the deal. He was an underhanded backstabber, besides being probably the most wretched person to ever breathe.
Everyone except the Nazis were always keeping one eye open to defeat the Nazis, because the Nazis wanted to defeat everyone except themselves.
P.S. Not all Germans were Nazis. The Nazis even killed the Germans who weren't "Aryan" (Jews, Jehova's Witnesses, GLBT, multiracial, etc)

2007-06-01 18:58:07 · answer #8 · answered by DCFN 4 · 0 1

Lack of planning.

The goal was peace with Brittain (they refused peace with Germany despite many offers from Hitler).

Unfortunately the German economy wasnt setup to continue without war. It was very unstable despite the way it seemed. Economies cannot be situated entirely upon slave labor and war machines. They need growth industry. The German gov't did not allow for this, so war had to be constantly waged even if it wasnt wanted.

Free/cheap labor is a temporary help to the economy, not a permanent fix.

2007-06-01 14:40:44 · answer #9 · answered by Showtunes 6 · 0 0

Some of the previous answers are dealing more with "how" the Germans failed.

But a big reason why is that their ideology was so nakedly evil; their foreign policy so blatantly aggressive, that every free-thinking nation around the world opposed them, and every nation with the means and the direct connection to the war joined the actual fight against them - not just as a meddling affair, but as a struggle for something worth fighting for - the basic humanity of the world of the future.

The Germans ensured that the rest of the world would react against them, and so ensured their country would lose.

2007-06-01 13:41:43 · answer #10 · answered by ? 5 · 1 2

Just to follow-up on the 'why'...Given the relative populations, resources available and economic potential of the countries involved, Germany was destined to lose. Having said that, however, they did come close to winning. Many point to Hitler's blunders, from the order to halting his tanks on the outskirts of Dunkirk to the urban battle on the banks of the Volga in '42.

2007-06-01 14:05:24 · answer #11 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers