You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The Second World War was, for the Nazi regime, not an accident or a mere instrument of policy but the logical culmination of its entire ideology: the pursuit of Lebensraum in the east, the building of a racial empire, and the destruction of what it called 'Judeo-Bolshevism'. The war and the genocide examined in the previous lesson were therefore inseparable, twin expressions of the same worldview. This lesson examines the course of the conflict, the mobilisation of the German economy and society for 'total war', the experience of the home front under bombardment, and, above all, the central analytical question: was Germany's defeat inevitable, or could the war have ended differently? That question demands a careful weighing of factors — resources, strategy, leadership, the resilience of Germany's enemies — and a resistance to the easy hindsight that reads the outcome back into the beginning. The second-order concept most in play is causation, but also the historian's discipline of counterfactual restraint: explaining why Germany lost without assuming that it was bound to lose from the first day.
Key Question: Was Germany's defeat inevitable, and how should historians weigh resources, strategy, leadership and the strength of the Allied coalition in explaining the course and outcome of the war?
Key Definition: Blitzkrieg ('lightning war') describes the method of rapid, concentrated attack combining tanks, motorised infantry and close air support to achieve swift, decisive victories. Spectacularly successful in 1939–41 against unprepared opponents, it proved inadequate for the prolonged war of attrition that the conflict became after 1941.
This lesson addresses Germany at war within Part Two of Option 2O: Democracy and Nazism: Germany, 1918–1945, the Paper 2 Depth study. It is the final element of the course and covers the specification content on the impact of the war on Germany, the total-war economy and home front, and the reasons for Germany's defeat.
The war can usefully be divided into three phases: the period of spectacular Blitzkrieg victories; the turning point on the Eastern Front; and the long retreat to defeat.
In the first two years the German armed forces won a succession of rapid victories that astonished the world and seemed to vindicate the new methods of warfare.
| Campaign | Date | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Poland | September 1939 | Conquered in around five weeks, partitioned with the USSR under the Nazi–Soviet Pact |
| France and the Low Countries | May–June 1940 | France defeated in six weeks, a stunning reversal of 1914–18 |
| Battle of Britain | July–October 1940 | Germany's first failure: air superiority over Britain was not achieved and invasion was postponed |
| Balkans and North Africa | 1940–41 | German forces committed to support faltering Italian allies |
The Battle of Britain is analytically important as the first check to German expansion and the first failure of the Blitzkrieg method against an opponent protected by the sea and possessed of radar and a resilient air force.
The invasion of the Soviet Union, Operation Barbarossa (launched 22 June 1941), was the most consequential decision of the war and the supreme expression of Nazi ideology — the war for Lebensraum and racial empire in the east. The initial advances were spectacular, but the campaign ultimately failed, and the reasons repay analysis: the vast distances and the inadequacy of German logistics; the unexpected resilience and immense reserves of the Soviet Union; the onset of the Russian winter for which German forces were unprepared; Hitler's increasing interference in operational decisions; and a fundamental underestimation of Soviet capacity to absorb losses and relocate industry beyond the Urals.
The decisive turning point came at Stalingrad (the battle raging from August 1942 to February 1943), where the German 6th Army was encircled and forced to surrender, with Axis casualties of more than 800,000. Stalingrad shattered the myth of German invincibility and marked the point from which the strategic initiative in the east passed permanently to the Soviet Union.
Exam Tip: The 'turning point' is a classic point of debate. Some historians place it earlier, at the failure before Moscow in December 1941, when the Blitzkrieg gamble for a quick victory clearly failed; others at Stalingrad; others at Kursk in July 1943. The strongest answers evaluate the candidates rather than asserting one, distinguishing the point at which Germany ceased to win from the point at which defeat became certain.
From 1943 Germany was on the defensive on every front, fighting the multi-front war its strategists had always dreaded.
| Event | Date | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Kursk | July 1943 | The largest tank battle in history; the failure of Germany's last major eastern offensive and the start of continuous retreat |
| The Allied bombing offensive | 1942–45 | Sustained area bombing of German cities; some 3.6 million homes destroyed and around 7.5 million people made homeless |
| D-Day | 6 June 1944 | The Allied landings in Normandy opened the long-feared second front in the west |
| The July bomb plot | 20 July 1944 | The failed attempt by Stauffenberg and others to assassinate Hitler and end the war |
| The fall of Berlin | April 1945 | The Soviet capture of the capital; Hitler's suicide on 30 April |
| Surrender | 8 May 1945 | Unconditional surrender; victory in Europe |
A central paradox of the German war effort is that the economy was not fully mobilised for war until comparatively late, and reached its peak of output only as defeat loomed. Under Albert Speer, appointed minister of armaments in 1942, German armaments production rose dramatically even amid intensifying bombing — the so-called 'armaments miracle'.
| Product | 1942 | 1944 | Increase |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aircraft | 15,400 | 39,800 | +159% |
| Tanks | 9,300 | 27,300 | +194% |
| Ammunition | Index 100 | Index 306 | +206% |
The interpretation of this surge is contested. Adam Tooze argues that the 'miracle' has been overstated and that it reflected the belated mobilisation of an economy that had been far from fully harnessed earlier, together with the brutal exploitation of forced labour; Germany's fundamental and insurmountable problem, on his analysis, was resource insufficiency — it simply could not match the combined industrial might of the United States, the Soviet Union and the British Empire. The rising output, however impressive in isolation, was never enough to close the gap, and it came too late to alter the outcome.
The increase in production depended heavily on forced labour: by 1944 some 7.7 million foreign workers and prisoners of war were labouring in the German economy, around a quarter of the workforce, under conditions that ranged from harsh to murderous. The war economy and the regime's racial barbarism were thus directly connected.
Key Definition: Total war denotes the mobilisation of all of a society's resources — economic, human and psychological — for the war effort, eroding the distinction between the military and civilian spheres. Germany's transition to total war was gradual and remained incomplete by comparison with the more thorough mobilisation achieved by Britain and the Soviet Union.
For the German people the war brought, after the early years of victory and plunder, escalating hardship and, from 1942–43, devastation from the air. Joseph Goebbels's 'total war' speech of February 1943, delivered in the shadow of Stalingrad and calling on Germans to embrace total mobilisation, was a masterpiece of propaganda but could not disguise the deteriorating reality. The Allied bombing offensive inflicted enormous destruction — the firestorm at Hamburg in 1943 killed more than 40,000 people, and the controversial raid on Dresden in February 1945 killed in the order of 25,000 — yet Richard Overy argues that the bombing did not, as its advocates had hoped, break German morale or halt production outright; its principal effect was rather to divert vast German resources — fighter aircraft, anti-aircraft guns, manpower — to home defence, resources that were then unavailable at the front.
The July bomb plot of 1944 revealed how far sections of the military and conservative establishment had lost faith in the regime, but its failure was followed by ferocious reprisals. Ian Kershaw, in his study The End (2011), poses the haunting question of why Germany continued to fight with such cohesion long after defeat was certain, and argues that the failure of the July plot, by eliminating the one group capable of ending the war from within, actually prolonged the conflict and the suffering it brought.
The German war effort generates distinctive source problems, and an instructive type is the public political speech — for example Goebbels's 'total war' speech of February 1943, treated here as a representative source. How should a historian assess its value to an investigation of the home front and German morale?
Exam Tip: A public speech, like a poster, is evidence of intention rather than of reception; its staged audience is part of the performance. Use the confidential internal reports to recover the real mood the propaganda was designed to manage, and you turn the speech's limitation into an analytical strength.
The central interpretative question is whether Germany was doomed to lose, and if so from when — a question on which the major historians of the war economy and strategy differ in emphasis.
Adam Tooze comes closest to a structural determinism, arguing that Germany's resource base was fundamentally inadequate to a long war against the world's three greatest industrial powers, so that defeat was highly likely once the early gamble had failed; only a rapid, total victory in 1940–41, before American power could be brought to bear, could conceivably have succeeded, and even that is doubtful. Richard Overy, by contrast, in Why the Allies Won, resists the language of inevitability: Allied victory, he insists, was not preordained but had to be won, through superior strategy, the effective mobilisation of resources, and choices that could have gone otherwise; to call it inevitable is to diminish the achievement and to misunderstand the contingency of war. Ian Kershaw, in The End, turns from the question of why Germany lost to the equally important question of why it fought on with such discipline after defeat was certain, locating the answer in the structures of the regime, the grip of terror, the bonds of the Fuhrer state and the lack of any mechanism to end the war from within. Antony Beevor, in his narrative histories, emphasises how tactical and operational failures, many flowing from Hitler's interventions, compounded the strategic overreach.
| Historian | Argument |
|---|---|
| Adam Tooze | Germany's resource base was fundamentally inadequate; the war was a desperate gamble that only rapid early victory could have won (The Wages of Destruction, 2006) |
| Richard Overy | Victory was not inevitable; it had to be won through superior strategy and mobilisation (Why the Allies Won, 1995) |
| Ian Kershaw | The key question is why Germany fought on after defeat was certain, answered by the structures of the regime (The End, 2011) |
| Antony Beevor | Tactical and operational failures compounded strategic overreach |
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.