Germany mainly lost by losing the economics and resources games. A secondary factor was when Hitler started taking over strategic and tactical planning from the generals.
My take on the generals themselves is that they were at least not terrible.
Dont understand why you get downvoted, as I assume you mean that the generals wrwe not strategical and tactical terrible. Think most historians will agree that Hitlers direct involvement in the war was a growing issue in conducting the war. Also Hitler stayed in power by making sure that the levels below him were at each others throats and not able to challenge him directly. Nazi Germany was not technically on a war economy until Speer took over, and the amount of corruption was immens.
Some generals tried this. Other generals just kind of tried to survive and fight for their country. Still other generals were ideologically Nazis and they fought for the cause.
Like anything in the real world, it’s a mixed bag.
Blitzkrieg was like the American football play of the same name. If you don’t win real fast, you tend to find out that your motorized units are beyond reach of your supply lines. Then they get cut off, and the whole thing can collapse rapidly.
The Ardennes offensive was pulled off in 72 hours by using the powers of methamphetamine. Seriously, the German army issued a lot of meth to the troops. Imagine what would happen to the combat effectiveness if they had to keep fighting at that pace for a while.
This was a serious mistake, yes. And Barbarossa was another serious mistake.
But I think that Germany was still destined to lose the war anyway, because they were running out of oil and getting out manufactured. And the United States was going to find a way to enter the European theater one way or another.
Germany mainly lost by losing the economics and resources games. A secondary factor was when Hitler started taking over strategic and tactical planning from the generals.
My take on the generals themselves is that they were at least not terrible.
Dont understand why you get downvoted, as I assume you mean that the generals wrwe not strategical and tactical terrible. Think most historians will agree that Hitlers direct involvement in the war was a growing issue in conducting the war. Also Hitler stayed in power by making sure that the levels below him were at each others throats and not able to challenge him directly. Nazi Germany was not technically on a war economy until Speer took over, and the amount of corruption was immens.
Economic and resources problems are part in parcel with a despot with a desire for absolute loyalty.
Well they were probably too loyal to their idiot Fuhrer. Methinks it’s the loyalty part that Trump wants.
The generals tried to overthrow or assassinate him on multiple occasions. The most famous one is the plot for the movie “Valkyrie”.
Some generals tried this. Other generals just kind of tried to survive and fight for their country. Still other generals were ideologically Nazis and they fought for the cause.
Like anything in the real world, it’s a mixed bag.
Wasn’t Blitzkrieg like a brilliant strategy at the time that devastated their opponents?
Blitzkrieg was like the American football play of the same name. If you don’t win real fast, you tend to find out that your motorized units are beyond reach of your supply lines. Then they get cut off, and the whole thing can collapse rapidly.
The Ardennes offensive was pulled off in 72 hours by using the powers of methamphetamine. Seriously, the German army issued a lot of meth to the troops. Imagine what would happen to the combat effectiveness if they had to keep fighting at that pace for a while.
Germany lost by declaring war on the United States on December 11th 1941.
This was a serious mistake, yes. And Barbarossa was another serious mistake.
But I think that Germany was still destined to lose the war anyway, because they were running out of oil and getting out manufactured. And the United States was going to find a way to enter the European theater one way or another.
You mean the Red Army?