Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Both of the previous posts point to why WW2 began, and to some extent why resources were spent on reducing the non germanic populations, reprisals etc. But ideology while it played a central role I agree with Stona, there was a lot more in play, mostly really bad leadership. Heck we had a version of the same issue with Johnson and his cronies trying to run Vietnam from DC. Bad leadership translates directly into battle/war losing decisions, especially when a personality cult is involved or a psychopath (Stalin) or sociopath (Hitler) or a Narcissist (Mussolini).
I forgot about Davis to be honest, but he is good analogy. But Johnson with his infamous sand tables, often delayed significantly action that then was ineffective due to the nature of the conflict. And it was actually the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments that he supported, but actually very reluctantly. It was his party that did most of the work behind the Civil Rights Act and it's follow on with Johnson a very public figure head for the publicity and public face, but in several different biography's of him some not very supportive quotes he made about the whole issue figure fairly prominently. Lets just say his private beliefs did not seem to dovetail with his public statements.Nazism was, ultimately, a cult centered around Hitler. Jeff Davis' management of the Civil War is probably an equal or better analogy than Johnson's of Vietnam; much of the strategy in Vietnam was a result of what he was told by his military advisors, including those in uniform. It also gets people away from their antipathy to Johnson's success in enforcing the 14th and 15th Amendments.
Bad leadership translates directly into battle/war losing decisions, especially when a personality cult is involved or a psychopath (Stalin) or sociopath (Hitler) or a Narcissist (Mussolini).
Exactly! Hitler's micro-management of so many aspects, without expert knowledge, severely hampered German efforts. The push to develop the many wonder/super weapons, Tiger tank, Me-262, V-1 & V-2 rockets, and a host of others, versus continued improvement/modifications of current (proven) designs, hampered the German war production effort. Opening a second front certainly didn't help either. I'd argue, invading Poland was done too early.Honestly I think what went wrong for Germany in WW2 the most is its leadership. Hitler insisted on very direct control of his forces, and their use. The decisions he made, often overruling experienced field commanders, I believe directly led to the loss of the war. As time progressed he became more and more unstable. I mean he might have been politically savvy, but he was a corporal in WW1 and not exactly a military genius, yet he chose to wear a military uniform the majority of the time. And he infamously made or caused to made, very bad tactical and strategic decisions. His reluctance to press forward at Dunkirk let the majority of the British Expeditionary Force escape, his hesitation at D-Day allowed allied forces the toe hold they needed. His switch from attacking RAF bases to bombing cities during the BoB driven by pride due to the bombing of Berlin was another example, followed closely by the decision not to invade England.
It is rather scary to me when I think of the places where a decision made differently might well have altered the outcome of the war. Had the US not had England available as a staging area and place to launch attacks from in concert with the allies I don't think America would have had as much impact on the outcome of the war as quickly.
He was also easily swayed in his priorities, squandering or causing to be squandered money and resources on fanciful weapons systems, and of course architecture. His largest mistake in my opinion was opening a 2 front war. From what I have read his hatred of communism drove him to make decisions that his command staff strongly objected to. And of course his massive programs to eradicate other races and undesirables both at home and in captured territories consumed huge amounts of resources that could have been otherwise used. Both in terms of transportation as well as the various troops used to round up, transport, confine, and kill those prisoners.
So in short I truly believe they would have eventually lost the war, but it could have been a very different outcome, especially if Sea Lion had been launched. It might even have been a negotiated end rather than an outright defeat, at least initially.
Exactly! Hitler's micro-management of so many aspects, without expert knowledge, severely hampered German efforts. The push to develop the many wonder/super weapons, Tiger tank, Me-262, V-1 & V-2 rockets, and a host of others, versus continued improvement/modifications of current (proven) designs, hampered the German war production effort. Opening a second front certainly didn't help either. I'd argue, invading Poland was done too early.
The Nazi management of the German economy made the war inevitable at sometime close to the actual time. The Germans were well aware of British and others' rearmament which further limited their options.
The murder of millions of Jews was not in itself a war aim in 1939, but once these people fell under German control it became inevitable, even if it didn't actually start in an organised way for some time.
The removal and enslaving of the populations in the eastern occupied territories and exploitation of their resources was a war aim. In the West the aim was to use the existing economies to German advantage, but their management was so inept that none of the ever returned to their pre-invasion levels. Major economies, like France, never came close.That's just one more thing that the Germans got wrong.
Cheers
Steve
Of course, the most rational German option would have been to not start the war.
Agreed! The Nazi party had indeed painted itself into a corner in multiple ways. Their economic aims were unsustainable without a war time economy and territorial acquisition, but they had also roused the population and came to power by flogging public opinion over the way they were treated by the allies at the end of WW1, indeed in the 30's a recurring party theme was regaining territory and the populations lost by treaty at the end of the previous war. Basically in order to stay in power they had to deliver on their promises to their constituents which could only be done via invasion and conquest. Then the ideology kicked in and they had to deal with the vast numbers of "undesirables" in the conquered territories.German option, yes. But the Nazi regime had painted itself into an economic corner, while at the same time alarming it's neighbours into crash armaments programmes (albeit on nothing like the scale of their own, but they were starting from close to zero).
Had the Germans not invaded Poland when they did, or at a date not far removed, then the stability of Germany, her economic survival, and certainly the survival of the Nazi regime would all have been threatened.
By 1939 the 'not starting the war' option didn't exist anymore, it hadn't for at least a years, possibly longer, depending whose interpretation of the data you believe.
The only option was a regime change, this could have prevented a war, but at some cost to Germany. There are a lot of reasons why this didn't happen.
When Hitler intervened in Czechoslovakia there were many voices raised in protest among the military leadership. Beck's analysis, widely accepted, expected an immediate French attack on Germany's western frontier, and this prospect, frankly, scared the sh*t out of the German Army. When the attack on Poland was launched there was hardly a dissenting voice, so total was the control of the regime.
Cheers
Steve