Nazi Germany, overhyped?

NAZI Germany is depicted in out history books as a efficient, ruthless unstoppable war machine that could only be toppled by the combined efforts of Russia, USA and UK.......but is that really true?

I have been reading Albert Speers inside the third riech. For those who dont know who he was, he started off as Hitlers architect, became one of hitlers closest friends and ended up in charge of the German war manufacturing. He gained a reputation for being the only NAZI to admit responsibility for the regimes crimes and after spending 20 years in prison wrote a very detailed acounts of the inside politics and state of the german economy.


His premise is that NAZI Germany was fundamentally flawed with corruption at every level. Hitler was self obsessed with his own passions and at the best of times lazy, at the worst of times micromanging and sending contradictory or vague orders causing blunders. Top Riech ministers where too busy back stabbing each other than doing there jobs or in Goerings case not doing anything at all except holding parties and plundering art.

This attitude extended right down to the very bottom with minor ministers pilfering resources for non war related vanity projects.

This led into the bigger problem was that the German economy and industry was not fully mobilised until the very end. Hitler resisted calls for total industrial mobilisation out of fear deprivation of luxorys would cause civil unrest. That meant all though Germany industry was greater than Great Britain it could not keep up with the UK military production who's economy was fully mobilised. And of couse Germany had to deal with Russias industry too and later the USA..........

To compound the problem Speers request to use German women labour like the allies was denied by hitler as it was deemed "harmful to German woman hood". Instead speer was forced to use slave labour which turned out to be useless due to a mixture of sabotage
, problems with language barriers and the fact the SS guards mistreated the slaves.


The next problem was its strategic resource supply, of course oil was the most famous problem but the most serious was Chromium. Germany only had a finite supply of Chromium and it was scheduled to run out in 1947 at the latest. Without Chromium there would have been no new tanks or artillery. End of war.

Fact was Hitlers sucees between on 1939 and 1941 was built on blind luck.
Hitler generally feared the UK getting involved when he invaded Poland and was gambling they would let it slide like Czechoslovakia. Advice from Generals was that war with France and Britain would like be lost, hence why Hitler not only sought a alliance with the UK right up till the brink but also had the offer of a peace treaty open rather than surrender of the UK.
It seems hitler only won France due to luck and poor and out dated military doctrines on the side of France and Britain.

It seems to me the entire third riech was just a very week house of cards that never stood a chance. Whatever happened it would of collapsed at some point. France and Britain probably didnt even need to get involved as it would of gone down eventually due to NAZI incompetence and mismanagement.

The entire view of the strong and unstoppable third Riech was just smoke and mirrors......

Oh dear me, there is so much wrong with that its not funny
Overhyped, seriously, under estimated

If Hitlers Germany had have invaded the UK then they would have been smashed eventually by Germany
It may have taken years but the UK would have capitulated because of the uboats, because of the lack of resources and help
Then North Africa, having control of France would have helped control North Africa and Hitler would have used the Italians not relied on them
Once completed, then Russia

Having three fronts was the downfall, overhyped no, poorly managed was the issue

France and Britain were drawn into the war, they had no choice, without Russia they were defeated
Hitler didn't win France Austria and Poland because of poor skill and weapons from France and Britain, the German army won on modern weapons and speed, really, the drug speed and speed of their attacks

8 out of 10 German soldiers died on the Russian front

originally posted by: crazyewok
It seems to me the entire third riech was just a very week house of cards that never stood a chance. Whatever happened it would of collapsed at some point. France and Britain probably didnt even need to get involved as it would of gone down eventually due to NAZI incompetence and mismanagement.

Yet for all these weaknesses, the state was still strong enough to invade other countries successfully, which is how France and Britain got involved.The military was unstoppable in the short term, as demonstrated by the fact that other armies kept being defeated.

Another weakness was the dependance on one man's personal strategic judgement. Arguably the worst mistake Hitler made was the gratuitous declaration of war on the United States, when Roosevelt would otherwise have been obliged by domestic pressure to focus on Japan.

originally posted by: crazyewok

His premise is that NAZI Germany was fundamentally flawed with corruption at every level... Top Riech ministers where too busy back stabbing each other than doing there jobs or in Goerings case not doing anything at all except holding parties and plundering art.

I can't speak to everything you wrote, but what I quoted above is typical of big government. Not sure why so many people today support big government, propaganda I guess, which was a big feature of the Third Reich.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
Yet for all these weaknesses, the state was still strong enough to invade other countries successfully

But the Germans were the ones getting in there first with the knock out punch! When two people get into a punch up it nearly always ends with the winner being the one who threw the first punch. Added to which the attacks were carried out on smaller countries who never would have had a chance. Often tiny countries compared to the population of Germany at that time. Ewok is totally correct that Germany was overhyped and as soon as they took on the USSR it was game over they never stood a chance total madness...... Yet Hitler had to have a go at taking out the Soviets as at some point down the line Stalin would have had a go at Germany for sure and when you're up against the largest country on Planet Earth by a mile with all its resourses then it was never going to end in success, Adolf's regime was always doomed to fail because of the east

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Oh dear me, there is so much wrong with that its not Overhyped, seriously, under estimated

Nope it was overestimating Germany and fear of them that prevented the UK for swooping in and taking them out when they occupied the Sudetenland when in fact if the UK had done Nazi Germany would have been over by 1937! In fact if the Czecs had put up a fight Hitler even conceded they would have likely won due to how fortified there defences where!

Dithering and fear paralysed the allies at the start and allowed the German victorys.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

If Hitlers Germany had have invaded the UK then they would have been smashed eventually by Germany

That never would of happened due to the fact the UK had control of the skys and the fact the largest navy in world stood between Europe and Britain. Unless Germans learned to walk on water there would have been no invasion of the UK. Operation Sealion was a pipe dream.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
It may have taken years but the UK would have capitulated because of the uboats, because of the lack of resources and help

UK had a empire to back it resources up and also was buying resources from the USA. Resources was never a issue.
As for U boats?
UK developed very effective counter measures for dealing with them and a navy big enough to put them into effect.
German U boat production could not keep up with the loses, especially after German enigma codes where broke.

Again Albert Speer noted in his book that Germany started the war with to few U boats and was producing to few.
Being the head of German armaments I will take his opinion over yours.

If things had turned sour for the UK at the Very worst the UK would of just signed a peace treaty withdrawing from the draw. Hitler pretty much had on the table from the beginning he would settle for a negotiated peace where Germany withdrew from france in exchange that the UK withdrew from the war (hitlers real interest was Russia).

originally posted by: [post=22435998]Raggedyman[/post
Then North Africa, having control of France would have helped control North Africa and Hitler would have used the Italians not relied on them

Well he tried that and the Brits sent Germany and Italy running and when the US turned it resulted in a route and destruction of the African Corps.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Once completed, then Russia

That was always his plan.
Russia was always the enemy.

Hitler actually wanted the UK on his side against Russia.

originally posted by: Raggedyman


France and Britain were drawn into the war, they had no choice,

Nope.

UK could of sought a Alliance out with Hitler. He admired the British Empire as a testament to the superiority of the Aryan Race. The UK rightfully saw him as a unhinged nut.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

without Russia they were defeated

Again, unless Germans learned to fly or walk on water, the UK was safe.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Hitler didn't win because of poor skill and weapons from France and Britain,

Wrong as British and French doctrines was extremely outdated and dismal.
UK and France actually started the war with better tanks and Aircraft. They just did not know how to use them!
They spread there tanks out piecemeal which meant Germany who concentrated her tanks in mass assaults overpowered them even though the early panzer models where little more than metal coffins.
Couple that with the extreme lack of command and control between the French and British.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

the German army won on modern weapons and speed, really, the drug speed and speed of their attacks

Speed yes modern weapons no.

Actually at the start of the war only 10% of its army was motorised. And as I said earlier its early tanks where inferior to there British and French counterparts. Most its artillery was still horse drawn!
The fact is it did have a few very very well equipped divisions and these where the divisions used in the Blitzkrieg Spearhead. The majority of the army where pretty underequipped. A flaw that became apparent when the Blitzkrieg fizzled out in Russia in 1941 and Germany had to fall back on it other troops.

originally posted by: Raggedyman


8 out of 10 German soldiers died on the Russian front

Yes but wars are not won on the battlefield alone.

Most the time they are won in the office.

You cant win a war without a economy to back it up. NAZI Germany did not have the economy for a prolonged war.

And that's the entire point of the thread.

Germany lost the war not on the battlefield but in the factory's.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: crazyewok
It seems to me the entire third riech was just a very week house of cards that never stood a chance. Whatever happened it would of collapsed at some point. France and Britain probably didnt even need to get involved as it would of gone down eventually due to NAZI incompetence and mismanagement.

Yet for all these weaknesses, the state was still strong enough to invade other countries successfully, which is how France and Britain got involved.The military was unstoppable in the short term, as demonstrated by the fact that other armies kept being defeated.

Another weakness was the dependance on one man's personal strategic judgement. Arguably the worst mistake Hitler made was the gratuitous declaration of war on the United States, when Roosevelt would otherwise have been obliged by domestic pressure to focus on Japan.

That the key though. Short Term.

It could only win short term wars. Long term it was #ed by the nature of its economy.

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy

originally posted by: crazyewok

His premise is that NAZI Germany was fundamentally flawed with corruption at every level... Top Riech ministers where too busy back stabbing each other than doing there jobs or in Goerings case not doing anything at all except holding parties and plundering art.

I can't speak to everything you wrote, but what I quoted above is typical of big government. Not sure why so many people today support big government, propaganda I guess, which was a big feature of the Third Reich.

Its a very good observation and one not lost on me.

Hitler had so many government departments and ministers doing there own thing with there own agendas......the entire thing spelled economic collapse.

a reply to: ufoorbhunter
The rule of "first punch wins" did not apply in the previous war, when the attacker nearly always got punished.
So the German army had to develop into something strong enough to overcome the defensive capabilities on which the other countries were relying. While recognising the weaknesses of the Nazi state, it is sensible not to go too far the other way.

France did not think of themselves as a "small country" at the time (they don't now).

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: ufoorbhunter
The rule of "first punch wins" did not apply in the previous war, when the attacker nearly always got punished.
So the German army had to develop into something strong enough to overcome the defensive capabilities on which the other countries were relying. While recognising the weaknesses of the Nazi state, it is sensible not to go too far the other way.

France did not think of themselves as a "small country" at the time (they don't now).

But there weakness was that they backed to much effort into that first punch and not enough effort into what happens if it fails.

Germany was not equipped for long drawn out wars.

But most importantly nor was its economy and that is what I am getting that.

The war was lost in 1941 when there first punch failed to knock out Russia.


France Hitler just got extremely lucky.

a reply to: crazyewok
I am not challenging the basic thesis. Just concerned about the possibility of over-stating the conclusion.

a reply to: DISRAELI
WW1 was stalemate, German invasions of other nations with WW2 were largely on smaller states with no means to counter an offensive from a much bigger state. Hitler had nothing to stand in his way. Polish cavalry? Czech army? Norway Denmark Even France was a much smaller state than Germany. Sure I give you they thought they had the best army in Europe but it still is fact that Germany was a much bigger state and they got the first punch in.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

It may have taken years but the UK would have capitulated because of the uboats, because of the lack of resources and help

Anything but................................................ Great Britain was totally safe from Nazi Germany with a Navy that made penetration of our island in that era and for 900 years prior impossible. Added to which our Imperial possessions were really ramping up for the war effort and were fundemental in defeating the Axis all over the globe. With India, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand (jeez could list forever) we had resources that Germany and Japan were always going to fail to match. Remember in te 1940's we were only just beginning to harness the Indians in defeating Japan, if war had continued the India would have played an even greater part in the war and been much more needed and effective as an industrial and conscript resource if necessary long term in the west, but Stalin negated the need for that

a reply to: crazyewok

I suggest you spend a little more time studying history
So much you have said is just wrong
And there is no point challenging you because you can't listen

Try a few videos, military history visualized on YouTube

Hitler lost because he attacked Russia, 8 out of 10 German soldiers lost their lives on the eastern front
Germanies armies and weapons were lost on the eastern front

Germany lost simply because of poor manage,ent, they were not overhyped

Britain could have been destroyed at Dunkirk

The enigma was broken after Russia was invaded, your timeline is wonky

The blitzkrieg that conquered most of Europe, then fizzled out when Stalin sacrificed everything to hold Stalingrad and won

Nazi Germany were not overrated, they were close to conquering all of Europe, a very big ask for any nation

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: crazyewok

I suggest you spend a little more time studying history

I can assure you my head is in books. Hence this thread.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

So much you have said is just wrong

Why?

My theory is back up by evidence from the German Armaments minister, who better would know Germanys war capability than him!

originally posted by: Raggedyman

And there is no point challenging you because you can't listen

I am listening's, but you have presented no valid arguments.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Try a few videos, military history visualized on YouTube

You tube?

I prefer to get my history from BOOKS, preferably primary sources......like Germans Minister of armaments,

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Hitler lost because he attacked Russia, 8 out of 10 German soldiers lost their lives on the eastern front
Germanies armies and weapons were lost on the eastern front

And Germanys did not have the industrially capability to replace those loses.

originally posted by: Raggedyman


Germany lost simply because of poor manage,ent, they were not overhyped

Yeah that IS my argument. Germany was fundamentally weak due to its poor leadership and massive mismanagement of resources.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Britain could have been destroyed at Dunkirk

1) Only its army, the Navy and Air force was still intact. Again unless German troop learned to fly or walk on water they wont going anywhere.
2) It wasn't destroyed at Dunkirk hence your entire point is moot.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

The enigma was broken after Russia was invaded, your timeline is wonky

Doesn't matter when it was broken. Enigma had # all to do with Russia. It would of been broken regardless and the U boat threat diminished anyway. Russia had no more to do with that than it did the attack of pearl harbour.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
The blitzkrieg that conquered most of Europe, then fizzled out when Stalin sacrificed everything to hold Stalingrad and won

It fizzled out in 1941 when it failed in its aims before winter hit.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Nazi Germany were not overrated, they were close to conquering all of Europe, a very big ask for any nation

Only nation it conquered of note was France. Poland, Belgium and Holland does not really count seeing as they had little to nothing to resist with. France got conquered due to very very poor strategic planning. Look up what any German General said on that campaign, they never expected such a easy victory and where in shock it happened.

It did not even get close to conquering the UK hence why Hitler would of settled with a peace treaty and withdrawal of the UK from the war.
Germany COULD NOT HAVE CROSSED THE CHANNEL.

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

The British were starving as most of the shipping was being destroyed by u boats
Google is your friend

Go to the imperial war museum, Churchill was terrified of the u boats

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

The British were starving as most of the shipping was being destroyed by u boats
Google is your friend

Go to the imperial war museum, Churchill was terrified of the u boats

No one was starving. We had to go on rationing but no one starved.


And yes the U boats where a threat......if nothing had been done about them.

Read up on the battle of the Atlantic....The British developed plenty of counter measures, Convoys, Sonars, Escorts ect
And then we cracked Enigma.

By 1943 we where sinking U Boats faster than Germany could make them.

Supply's where getting through.....due to the fact Britain was still alive and kicking in 1945!
Russia had nothing to do with that.

And if things had got desperate? The UK had a out. Accept Hitler's offer of a negotiated peace. He didn't want the UK as a enemy in the first place.



Stop being patronising and telling me to google things and youtube things. I take my history from actual books. Non American "history" books.

a reply to: crazyewok

Britain were just so tough, they conquered the nasty nazis on their own
Russia won the war, not Britain, not the US

Without the US Britain would have starved.
Rationing because there were limited supplies in the UK

The war was over in 43, Stalingrad was the end for Germany, poor decision making by those in charge
Germany was not overestimated, just poorly managed

originally posted by: crazyewok
No one was starving. We had to go on rationing but no one starved.

Lol!! I don't know much about maneuvers or weapons or strategies.....

but the people in general (unlike now) were leaner meaner fighting

machines.

The average person could possibly benefit from a returning to rationing

a reply to: crazyewok

In a war time economy graft is always around. Yes it happened in Germany but it also happened in the allies as well. There will always be humans that take advantage of situations. As far as lobor your right they needed soldiers and people to manufacture weapons. Using force labor was not very effective and in Germany using women in the work force would habe started a revolution.

Women at the time in Germany were considered a national treasure. And they would protect them in fact one of the rallying cries foe the Russian front was they couldn't allow them into Germany they would rape their women. Germans believed women were to be protected probably a lot to do with their history.

Now wolfram aka tungsten was a vital resource for making tanks guns and tools. The Nazi got their supply from Spain and portugal. The reason for the shortage was because the allies realized this they bought all portugal could produce. The shortage was created by the US and Britain.

And saved France for last two reasons he won well three actually. The French put to much confidence in the manganot line. Hitler went around it instead of fight it. The blitzkrieg was a new battle tactic up to this point infantry fought the battles. And finally the French themselves they were so slow to mobilize by the time they did it was to late.Do not think they got it by luck it was planned and executed flawlessly.

Bottom line is it toOK the allies a while to figure out how to combat the German military. The tactic was to overwhelm them and always bring more to the fight than they had. If they had stopped the D day invasion and they almost did Germany would have won the war.


The Germans always out fought the Russians depending on what year ranged from 6 to 1. Even on the final push into berlin it was still 1 to 1 and then the German military was breaking down. The Russians never showed themselves to be able to defeat the Germans without significant losses. Final number 12 million Russian's vs 2 million nazis. To give you an idea how high these numbers where the US troops who died during world War 2 was 405 ,000. Number killed in combat was 292,000.