At what point did Germany lose WW2?

[Provenzano]

From a purely militaristic point of view, Hitler lost the war in Russia, and therefore the entire war, simply because he is more a tactical thinker and not a strategic thinker. This was fatal in Russia because the population of Russia is more than 2 times than the German population and obviously Russia is one big mothafuking country.

When Barbarossa started, OKW's clear objective was for the big decisive strike at Moscow. Now most of you here probably already know this, but Hitler, in the early stages of Barbarossa, diverted his attention into capturing and destroying Russian troops instead of driving onto Moscow, despite literally all his generals telling him not to. This resulted in many spectacular victories like Battle of Kiev and sadly, hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers dying in German POW camps. These great battles of encirclements seriously delayed the entire German offensive and therefore ended up in the somewhat successful Russian counterattack of Moscow in the winter of 41-42.

Hitler is politician, great at giving speeches, lying to the people and etc. At war, Hitler thinks like most of us here, greedy for every small gain. He lacks the big strategic viewpoints of experienced generals which Germany possessed so many. His generals knew that taking Moscow before the winter will be a fatal blow to Soviet politically, militarily and psychologically, if not a complete death blow. Hitler thought that killing and capturing (and eventually starving/murdering) Soviet troops would eventually starve off Soviet Union's military reserves, but he didn't realize how much of a d1ckhead Stalin really was. Stalin didn't give a rat's ass about his people, and is willing to do anything to keep himself in power or in his words "Protect the Motherland" when in fact, Stalin is just trying to save himself, sacrificing millions of troops just for himself.

Also Hitler tends to ignore the smaller details of things and have too high expectations of his soldiers. His quote "Nothing is impossible for the German soldier" ironically wasted the lives of hundreds of thousands of German soldiers, and a lot of them were well-trained and experienced soldiers Nazi Germany could not afford losing.

[ljadw]

The truth is the opposite of what you have written :everything is wrong .
The OKH did not disagree with Hitler on strategy : the strategy was to lure the Red Army to the border,to defeat the Red Army on the border,and than to go as quickly as possible to the east,as far as possible (end goal was the Urals).

[bronk7]

I would say on June 22th 1941, attacking the Sovietunion was a fatal error.

Regards,
Edwin Meinsma

totally agree--however there is no way they could've occupied all the countries they did...it is very hard/'impossible' to OCCUPY a country forever unless you TOTALLY defeat it as we did Japan and Germany..it costs money and ill will..as seen today in Afganistan[many times] and Iraq/etc

[Paul Lantos]

Over time I've come to believe that the war in Europe was definitively lost for Germany when they lost the battle of Moscow in Dec 1941. Defeating the Soviets in 1941 was their only chance to avoid a protracted "total" war that required enormous industrial and manpower reserves and huge occupying forces. 1941 was also the only year in which Germany was able to mount an offensive along their entire line in the East. In 1942 they only had a major offensive operation in the south, i.e. through the Ukraine and to Stalingrad -- so their capacity to wage a huge war along an enormous front was gone even by 1942.

Still, one can argue that Germany would have lost the war even if they had taken Moscow. By the winter of 1941 most of the catastrophic losses suffered by the Soviets had already happened; and much of their industrial production and manpower reserves had moved eastward well out of the reach of German forces. So even if Germany ended up occupying Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad, it's still very difficult to believe that the Soviet Union would have been outright defeated. After all, you win wars by destroying the enemy's fighting capacity, not by occupying their cities.

The only counterfactual in which I can see Germany truly defeating the Soviet Union would be if Japan had attacked the eastern USSR instead of attacking the South Pacific and Pearl Harbor. If Stalin had been forced to fight a two-front war, then I doubt he could have prevailed against Germany. At the same time, this might have accelerated US involvement in Western Europe, so it is very difficult to really understand how this would have played out.

[KDF33]

Over time I've come to believe that the war in Europe was definitively lost for Germany when they lost the battle of Moscow in Dec 1941. Defeating the Soviets in 1941 was their only chance to avoid a protracted "total" war that required enormous industrial and manpower reserves and huge occupying forces. 1941 was also the only year in which Germany was able to mount an offensive along their entire line in the East. In 1942 they only had a major offensive operation in the south, i.e. through the Ukraine and to Stalingrad -- so their capacity to wage a huge war along an enormous front was gone even by 1942.

There is little reason to believe that taking Moscow would bring about the collapse of effective Soviet resistance.

Still, one can argue that Germany would have lost the war even if they had taken Moscow. By the winter of 1941 most of the catastrophic losses suffered by the Soviets had already happened; and much of their industrial production and manpower reserves had moved eastward well out of the reach of German forces. So even if Germany ended up occupying Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad, it's still very difficult to believe that the Soviet Union would have been outright defeated. After all, you win wars by destroying the enemy's fighting capacity, not by occupying their cities.

I'd argue that the outcome of the war in the East was still in the balance, at least until the 1942-3 Soviet winter counter-offensive.

The only counterfactual in which I can see Germany truly defeating the Soviet Union would be if Japan had attacked the eastern USSR instead of attacking the South Pacific and Pearl Harbor. If Stalin had been forced to fight a two-front war, then I doubt he could have prevailed against Germany. At the same time, this might have accelerated US involvement in Western Europe, so it is very difficult to really understand how this would have played out.

This wouldn't be nearly as significant as you think. There was little valuable in the Soviet Far East, and the RKKA formations guarding the frontier could simply retreat along the Trans-Siberian and strike the advancing Japanese with mobile units.

Regards,

KDF

[bronk7]

There is little reason to believe that taking Moscow would bring about the collapse of effective Soviet resistance.

quote]

totally agree.....

[AJFFM]

Soviet Resistance survived because there was a Soviet State behind it that either directly supplied it or kept the German forces so occupied they can't afford going after them. The fall of Moscow may not result in the fall of the USSR but it will put the Soviet leadership in utter disarray and would almost surely bring the downfall of Stalin and we all know the Soviet State nearly collapsed internally when Stalin died in peaceful circumstances

As for the importance of Moscow, even if it was not that important economically, which is utterly false, remember, Moscow in Dec. 1941 was protected by roughly 50% of all USSR troops and almost all Red army reserves were allocated to the Moscow axis. A defeat in Moscow means by default the loss of not only 50% of the total Red Army troops, but also all the readily available reserves for all fronts. Even if the Germans can't pursuit for months after a victory in Moscow they will still be far more superior than any Soviet troops raised in 42 as the actual history of the war in 42 proved.

[ljadw]

1)That the fall of Moscow would bring almost (how much) surely the downfall of Stalin,is an unproved personal opinion,which is good for under the bus .

2)That the Soviet state nearly collapsed internally when Stalin died in peaceful circumstances is an unproved claim,and if the bus is passing ...

3)That the defeat in Moscow would mean the loss of all troops who were defending Moscow is also on the same level of the former points .

4)Idem for the statement that the Germans were far more superior than any Soviet troopd raised in 1942.

Never heard of the desaster of Stalingrad,and,of the almost desaster of Leningrad ?

[AJFFM]

Although this is all in the what if realm I think certain points need to be addressed.

1)That the fall of Moscow would bring almost (how much) surely the downfall of Stalin,is an unproved personal opinion,which is good for under the bus .

It is not that different than claiming Stalin would survive a fall of Moscow since both scenarios are "what ifs". If Stalin loses Moscow he basically lost his legitimacy as a leader. There are several historical precedents to this.

2)That the Soviet state nearly collapsed internally when Stalin died in peaceful circumstances is an unproved claim,and if the bus is passing ...

That is the reality of the situation in Moscow 1953. Stalin was a stiff for days before he was officially declared dead and was already contemplating a new purge. His succession was not formalised until five years later and after several purges, attempted coups, assassinations and inner-party struggles. If all this happened during peace one could only speculate what would happen when the center of the communist universe, Moscow, falls into enemy hands.

3)That the defeat in Moscow would mean the loss of all troops who were defending Moscow is also on the same level of the former points .

The only way to capture Moscow is to defeat the troops protecting it which were half the Soviet Army plus all readily available reserves. Unless there is some troop making machines in the east that can produce 3 million extra troops, and I am not counting lost reserves, on short notice I really can't see your point. All troops assigned to the big three cities, Minsk, Smolensk and Kiev were lost and these are about 2 million men. Why is imaging the USSR losing 3 million men in Moscow so hard?

4)Idem for the statement that the Germans were far more superior than any Soviet troopd raised in 1942.

Never heard of the desaster of Stalingrad,and,of the almost desaster of Leningrad ?

Still, all Soviet attempts before Stalingrad to stop the Germans failed despite having superior numbers, shorter supply routes and an unending line of credit from the US.

Besides, you're missing my point. My point is even with Moscow safe and all the above and still it took the Red army 11 months and nearly 2 million lives to check the German advance, with the hypothetical fall of Moscow the USSR would never be able to raise the same numbers of troops in 42 as it actually did and if the actual numbers failed to dent the German superiority how would a mortally wounded USSR do with less troops?

And by the way, it is spelled Disaster.

[bronk7]

remember--the big question is about losing WW2-not just losing Moscow/Stalingrad/etc....they still had to keep troops in Russia AND France and Yugoslavia and NAfrica, Norway, and etc etc.....even if Russia lost Moscow/men/etc, there were still England and all the resistance groups all over Europe....England would not be immediately defeated if Moscow was lost.....if, they moved forces from Russia to deal with England, WAA--LAA!....they can't keep Russia...Russian space and numbers could not be defeated easily, if at all.....Germany [ and Japan ]was getting POUNDED-SURROUNDED etc in 1945 and they STILL did not surrender!....do you think Russia would've surrended if less than half their country was 'occupied' [not efficiently either] ??? caps for emphasis only

[bronk7]

and, this was during the winter!!.....the German army was not going anywhere fast, even if they had won at Moscow

[ljadw]

Although this is all in the what if realm I think certain points need to be addressed.

1)That the fall of Moscow would bring almost (how much) surely the downfall of Stalin,is an unproved personal opinion,which is good for under the bus .

It is not that different than claiming Stalin would survive a fall of Moscow since both scenarios are "what ifs". If Stalin loses Moscow he basically lost his legitimacy as a leader. There are several historical precedents to this.

2)That the Soviet state nearly collapsed internally when Stalin died in peaceful circumstances is an unproved claim,and if the bus is passing ...

That is the reality of the situation in Moscow 1953. Stalin was a stiff for days before he was officially declared dead and was already contemplating a new purge. His succession was not formalised until five years later and after several purges, attempted coups, assassinations and inner-party struggles. If all this happened during peace one could only speculate what would happen when the center of the communist universe, Moscow, falls into enemy hands.

3)That the defeat in Moscow would mean the loss of all troops who were defending Moscow is also on the same level of the former points .

The only way to capture Moscow is to defeat the troops protecting it which were half the Soviet Army plus all readily available reserves. Unless there is some troop making machines in the east that can produce 3 million extra troops, and I am not counting lost reserves, on short notice I really can't see your point. All troops assigned to the big three cities, Minsk, Smolensk and Kiev were lost and these are about 2 million men. Why is imaging the USSR losing 3 million men in Moscow so hard?

4)Idem for the statement that the Germans were far more superior than any Soviet troopd raised in 1942.

Never heard of the desaster of Stalingrad,and,of the almost desaster of Leningrad ?

Still, all Soviet attempts before Stalingrad to stop the Germans failed despite having superior numbers, shorter supply routes and an unending line of credit from the US.

Besides, you're missing my point. My point is even with Moscow safe and all the above and still it took the Red army 11 months and nearly 2 million lives to check the German advance, with the hypothetical fall of Moscow the USSR would never be able to raise the same numbers of troops in 42 as it actually did and if the actual numbers failed to dent the German superiority how would a mortally wounded USSR do with less troops?

And by the way, it is spelled Disaster.

What German superiority ?

[Robert Rojas]

Greetings to both citizen Heinz and the community as a whole. Well sir, in light of your now quite vintage introductory posting of Saturday - September 21, 2002 - 10:42am, old yours truly would like to expand upon the topical commentary of brother JU187 as expressed within his eloquent posting of Friday - February 01, 2013 - 9:52pm. Now, without going into a droning treatise on the subject, the Tripartite Alliance figuratively lost the Second World War on December 02, 1942 at 3:25pm in the Central Time Zone of North America. On that fateful day, the Manhattan Project's first controlled and self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction was achieved beneath Stagg Field at the University of Chicago. The rest is history. Oh, and by the way, just for the neighborhood's edification, old yours truly also touched upon this very same topic on Thursday - May 06, 2004 - 10:50pm within the thread entitled TURNING POINT IN THE WAR and Wednesday - April 13, 2005 - 9:56pm within the thread entitled TURNING POINT OF WORLD WAR TWO. Incidentally, both of these now vintage threads are presently located within the World War Two In General section of the forum. Now you know. Well, that's my initial two cents worth on this well worn topic of interest - for now anyway. In anycase, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in merry old England. God Save The Queen - not to mention everybody else.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob

[Frankfurter]

Any opions out there about at what point Germany lost ww2.

As far as strategy goes I´m undecided between four dates, the 1. being the day when the battle of Britain was lost, the 2. the day Hitler decided to wage war on Russia, the 3. being the day that the attack on Russia was delayed due to the Jugoslavian uprising, the 4. the day Hitler declared war on the US.

Why?
1. because the abandonment of the plan to conquer Britain inevitably lured the US into the war, sooner or later.
2. because I think while it would have been possible to beat the Soviets decisively on the battlefield, I doubt the Nazis would have been able to rule the huge country for a longer time, particularly not in the horrible way they ruled and alienated the local population.
3. those 6 weeks were missing from November onwards and would likely have brought the Soviet armies towards the brink of collapse, or would at least have created a situation which would have given the Wehrmacht a fair chance to win in 1942.
4. to do so at that time when victory in Russia moved further and further away was just extremely stupid. Its not just that huge armies were beginning to move in from the west (slowly that is), it also gave Russia the material that was bitterly needed to get on top of the Wehrmacht.


A. Stalingrad and B. the defeat of the Army group Africa a little later were only the tactical key events after which all chances to win were lost for Hitlers Reich.

Why?
A. an almost inevitable consequence of points 2 and 3. Taking the emotional side away, it wasnt glorious for the Red Army at all, which despite throwing in a hugely superior numbers of soldiers and material still suffered vastly bigger losses than the Germans.
B. it opened the backdoor for the western Allies once and for all. From that day in May 1943 onwards it was just a slow domino game.

[ljadw]

If you want to pick a date : the day Britain proclaimed it would continue the war (between 20 and 30 june 1940).

All the rest is irrelevant .