Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front

[TacticalNuke]

Yes, mistakes tend to do that.

[Graybucket]

1.) Germany didn't have enough resources to supply the offensive in the East.
2.) Germany ain't prepared to launch the 'Blitzkrieg' during Winter.
3.) Hitler fought too many fronts for his Armed Forces to manage , hold and secure since 1943. Just like North Africa, Italy, Russia and the Balkans.
4.) Stalingrad, Leningrad and Moscow were not the only situation why the Ostheer lost. Since the start of Barbarossa, Germany and the Soviet Union, made several encirclements, pockets of resistance and delayed objectives. This is one of the factors why the Ostheer delayed their attack on Moscow, thus, losing enough tanks, supplies and men on the Army Group Center.
5.) Hitler focused on three different and incredibly huge fronts, some of his General's suggestions were to take on Kiev first, then Moscow, and also signing a peace treaty to Britain first. (This is why the Luftwaffe weakened on all fronts)


And for my 'personal' reason why Germany lost on the East, it's because of his obsession to Stalin, basically, Hitler's quite a douche taking a not-so-important city with Stalin's name on it and cost him 1 army. Why not call him Obsessed?

[Tico_1990]

And for my 'personal' reason why Germany lost on the East, it's because of his obsession to Stalin, basically, Hitler's quite a douche taking a not-so-important city with Stalin's name on it and cost him 1 army. Why not call him Obsessed?

First of all, Stalingrad was a major city at that time with a major river port if I'm not mistaken, calling it "not-so-important" is rather far from the truth in my opinion.
Secondly, Stalingrad's position on the Volga river enabled the holder of the city to have great control over whatever was transported over it.
Thirdly, you have to think beyond mere economical targets here. Losing a city which bears the name of your leader isn't good for moral.

Cheers

[GodlikeDennis]

I think it comes down more to Hitler's OBSESSION with Stalingrad. Not allowing the army to fall back screwed him over.

[loatty]

well, Stalingrad was not at all an major strategically important goal, however, it was for both Hitler and Stalin THE icon of the soviet nation, and became an obsession for both, particularly for Hitler.

and about the winter, Barbarossa had to decide the war against Russia before the winter started, the entire operation was never intended to be fought during the winter, a very important fact to remember.

[Red_Stinger]

Stalingrad was indeed a important position. The city contained a lot of armament industry, and was controling the main road to caucasus. If the city had fall, soviets would have lost their control over the entire south of USSR. Moreover, germans initially wanted the city to be able to pass the Volga reliably, and then push even forward into soviet lines.

[loatty]

Stalingrad wasn't the key to the Caucasus. The city was important because of the transport shipping up and down the Volga and the fact it's capture would've secured the entrance to the Caucasus.

[Panzer4life]

If i had to explain why Germany failed in the Eastern Front, it was that Hitler didn't want to admit that his army, no matter how advance he made it sound, was actually a overhyped, army that fueled on victories against armies that only had Calvary. If you think someone like Stalin was going to send horses against a tank army, then you were mistaken.

Now, when it came to equipment, Russia actually out did the Germans in most catergories, lets take a look.
-Il-2 Strumovik vs Ju-87/HS-219. How is this even a fair fight. The Il-2 was better armed, was more armored, and was more mobile than either German CAS plane.
-T-34 vs Panzer4/Panther tank. This is a matter of numbers versus quality. In peace, you can make the most elborate tank in the world, with loing lasting parts and what not. But if it isn't going to live that long, then you might as well give up. The Russians made millions of T-34, cause it was cheap and easy to build. And it wasn't half bad.
-Is-2/KV tanks vs Tiger tanks: Well, this was only a matter of time. If you compare the tanks, the Kv lost out to the Tiger only because it was a easy target to kill. But the IS-2 made it clear that tanks guns would decide the battle. An Is-2's cannon may not be as far ranged as the Tiger's gun, but it has more explosive power, which means it could break gun barrels, destroy enemy fortification, and render any army obselte fast.
-Katyusha vs German Artillery: This is a matter of doctrine. the Germans were focused on powerful shells landing accurately on targets. the problem is that anyone who ever worked with artillery knows that your optimal window of opportunity is 30 seconds. That isn't a long time. So what the Russians did was they made the cheap trucks, fitted a ton of rockets on them, and had them all fire on one position at once. This led to destroying entire lines of Germans.

So next time someone said, Germany should have won due to weapons, tell them to do their research on the Russian War machine.

Ps: The Germans could have defeated the US and Britain, but only just.

[loatty]

you're right with the major part of your post, but Germany DID face powerfull tanks before Barbarossa, the French tanks were superior when Germany attacked France. it's the combination of superior tactics and (at least) very capable equipment, combined with some luck (can't help it, has to be said), which gave the Germans those earlier victories.

but for most of your post, your quite right indeed:)

[Red Baron]

Just my two cents.

Something that can't be overlooked is that when Hitler decided to invade the USSR, the maps they used for planning were innacurate. Many of what were shown to be major highways on the map, were little more than barely servicable dirt paths in reality.

Also, the entire invasion was planned to take only 9 weeks. Fighting in winter was not even considered, so when winter rolled around, German soldiers had to resort to scavanging winter clothes from Soviet corpses.

[EasyWay91]

Reasons why the Germans lost on the Eastern Front and eventually the entirety of the Second World War:

1) The very reliable and well-rounded T-34. Produced on such a large scale, outnumbered the Germans greatly.
Watch this:
Top Ten Tanks- # 1: The T-34

2) Russians and General Winter, bad idea. Finns, Germans, Swedes, French have all failed trying to tame Russia.

3) German overconfidence, and underestimation of the Soviet forces.

4) Lots of  tactical errors like the loss of the 6th Army at Stalingrad, the lack of winter equipment, and the very stupid failure at Kursk in 1943.

5) The sheer numbers and resources of the Red Army.

6) Germany waging a war against Great Britain which has the largest empire, the US which is the industrial and economic superpower of the world, and the Soviet Union with the worlds largest army.

[redtail666]

Previous poster had it right.
The basic facts are they were in a hopeless numbers game because of Hilter.  Their only hope would have been to maintain peace with one of the main allies.  If they had not attacked the Soviets, they could have concentrated on other fronts while keeping a keen watch on Stalin.  Stalin may even have aided them for a time, but he was just like Hitler, in that they could not help themselves when it came to critical thinking.  Decisions were made out of rage and paranoia, rather than logic presented by their generals.  Germany had one social advantage when facing the other allies, the allied leaders placed a higher value on having troops survive to fight again.  Hitler and Stalin could not have cared less about their people(IMO) it was all about their legacy.  The US economic ability made it inevitable that Germany would lose, because the axis did not have the capability to attack/harass it.  The endless supply of war materials would bury any enemy, no matter the quality of their people or weapons.  None of the main combatants were pushovers.

[Headlock]

  The Russian winnter was very... nasty very cold, an d the military police of the Nazy Germany were realy pack of idiots.
  For more detalys investgate Sven Hassel's books. There it's only about the Members of the Heer(german ground army) and theyr's mizerabil (or not) lifes

Sven hassel is a fraud, in case you didn't know.
Fun books, but deeply inaccurate - eg a Penal battalion is issued with Tiger tanks?? yeah, RIGHT.

[loatty]

I agree with Red Baron and EasyWay91, your saying it right, guys!:D
And although not completely correct, redtail666 is partly right about the issue with the two leaders.

Headlock, kinda strange reply, nvm.

[Imperium]

Germany was defeated because of massive allied aid given to the USSR, a long with having to fight on several fronts. The soviet union has mythologized the eastern front and the western world has bought the cool aid. Without the US, the Soviet Union could have hoped for a stalemate at best, because Stalin's interference with the Red Army greatly hampered it's fighting capabilities. Soviet figures, which are rigged to begin with, show statistics greatly in favor of Germany. The wermacht was a far more competant than the red army. this is despite Germany starting the war with outdated, inferior equipment and armor, and hardly using a fraction of it's industrial capacity until the second half of the war. despite hitler being a homocidal monster, he was much more competant than stalin, and not an inept maniac until the very end of the war. documentaries always blame germany's defeat on hitler, which is slightly true, but not very true. John Mosier is probably the best historian that corrects the war's record. My opinion could be wrong, but since I do not accept doctored soviet data or narrative, I doubt my opinion will change. Given the circumstances, Russia, not communism, could have crushed germany. THe soviet union was almost dismembered because it chose socialism. Without being propped up continuously by the allies, hitler's evil empire may have triumphed.