At what point did Germany lose WW2?

[ML-fin]

Germany lost the war when Moscow could not be taken. Anyway, losing would have come after some years when U.S. was to use atom bombs against german cities.

[Alixanther]

Germany lost the war when Moscow could not be taken. Anyway, losing would have come after some years when U.S. was to use atom bombs against german cities.

U.S. would never use A-bombs on Europe. The majority of its population at that time was European and most of them had relatives in Europe (including Germany). There would have been such a riot you could not imagine.
U.S. had a big chunk of German and Italian population and that was the fact they were not treated as Japanese were. You cannot jail 1/6 of your population.

If there's a country where U.S. would drop the bombs, that would be Soviet Union.

[BDV]

Germany lost the war when Moscow could not be taken. Anyway, losing would have come after some years when U.S. was to use atom bombs against german cities.

Moscow being taken does not mean the fall of Bolshevik Russia. As things stand, I think that Leningrad and Kiev together were more important to Bolshevik Russia's war effort than Moscow, Kiev in particular because it means that everything East of it (Kharkov and the Donetsk Basin) are still in Soviet hands.


P.S.

I disagree on A-bombing of Germany, after all the firebombing campaign was in no respect lighter on casualties than a A-bomb campaign would be. Germany was thoroughly demonized in the eyes of the American Public, and the AP would go along with the propaganda line.

[Erwinn]

Wouldn't the capture of Moscow makes Operation Eisenhammer a much more possibility? Even without an airstrike they could pull that off if they capture Moscow...

[Alixanther]

I disagree on A-bombing of Germany, after all the firebombing campaign was in no respect lighter on casualties than a A-bomb campaign would be. Germany was thoroughly demonized in the eyes of the American Public, and the AP would go along with the propaganda line.

There's a difference between "usual" bombing - where the public perceived the chance of surviving such a bombardment of being 40-60 % (even if this was not the case in the firestorm-type of bombing), while A-bombing the survival reaches almost 0 %. I'm sure that - even if they'd bombed Germany or other parts of Europe, after a while the outcry comes anyway. Not to mention the fallout - which could reach other European countries too (also represented in U.S. population).

[BDV]

There's a difference between "usual" bombing - where the public perceived the chance of surviving such a bombardment of being 40-60 % (even if this was not the case in the firestorm-type of bombing), while A-bombing the survival reaches almost 0 %. I'm sure that - even if they'd bombed Germany or other parts of Europe, after a while the outcry comes anyway. Not to mention the fallout - which could reach other European countries too (also represented in U.S. population).

The demonization of raydee-ayshun is a 50s phenomenon. A-bombs effectiveness would not be dramatically different from a god old level bombing.

German brick/stone houses offer better protection than the paper-walled Japanese houses, light colored wear, and "duck and cover" do work in reducing injury.

Also, you are underestimating the willingness of the American Public to go along with the propaganda line.

[Erwinn]

You forget one little thing: Radiation.

[Cult Icon]

SMOLENSK

Germany lost the war when Moscow could not be taken. Anyway, losing would have come after some years when U.S. was to use atom bombs against german cities.

[BDV]

You forget one little thing: Radiation.

Me?

Me forget the eeveel raydee-ayshun?

[ChrisDR68]

I think Germany lost the war in the period June 1940 to June 1941.

In order to win the war Hitler had to force the UK out of the war one way or the other. Personally I think the Germans would have had to invade the British Isles and occupy England from the Bristol channel to the Wash encompassing London. The rest of the UK would then be a Vichy style non-occupied zone centred on Liverpool or Glasgow.

Forcing the British out of the war through starvation by way of the u-boat war in the Atlantic was too long term and once a convoy system was initiated like in WWI was very likely to be strategically ineffective in it's ultimate goal.

Once Adolf had decided against Operation Sealion and set Germany's strategic course on the invasion of the Soviet Union the war for Germany was lost.

[antfreire]

Hitler would no go anywhere by invading the British Islands. The resources and the manpower invested in such an undertaking would have placed Germany in such a condition that it would be a parade for Stalin to invade Rumania and leave Germany out of fuel to continue the war. Hitler needed, and he thought he would get, a non agression pact with Great Britain that would leave the Fuhrer a green light to go to the East while allow the Britons to save their Empire. That was, according to him, the purpose of his life and the assurance of the one thouzand years reich.

[BDV]

I guess when it decided to invade Holland or Norway (whichever one of these two idiocies passed first through Adolf's cranium).

[ML59]

The decision to invade Norway was not an original idea of Hitler but a countermove to avoid a British invasion that was actually adverted by few hours. Norway neutrality was in German interest, the same for Sweden; Germany took the great risk of a naval operation in hostile waters only when there was no other chance.
Holland is a different matter but, btw, why should it be considered the beginning of the end??

[BDV]

The decision to invade Norway was not an original idea of Hitler but a countermove to avoid a British invasion that was actually adverted by few hours.

The analysis of the moves around Weserubung is muddled by the fog of war, and compounded by the postwar need to whitewash it propagandistically given the hilariously disastrous results visited upon the Norwegians who (like the Dutch) had only wanted to sit that particular mess (WWII) out.

However (not that it stopped them previously) Adolf and his gang of incompetent murderers did not have the right (casus belli), nor the reason (strategic need) to do what they did historically; particularly considering what was about to go down in Wallonie and Lothringen within 4 weeks.

[ML59]

I totally agree with you that the Nazi as a whole were a bunch of murderers, this is historically a fact. Nevertheless, that has nothing to do with the decision to invade Norway or Holland and even less with the fact that the invasion of those two countries was the beginning of the end for Germany. Please motivate your assertion.