At what point did Germany lose WW2?

[flakbait]

There was SO much "revisionist" rewriting, and re-rewriting and then shortly later even more re-re-rewriting of various versions of this and earlier periods of Soviet history that in many cases the volumes were "politically inaccurate" (with imaginable `consequences` for the writers and editors and publishers nominally responsible) before the ink was very dry...ironically, you now have written transcripts of trials and inquires where everyone involved, from the accused, the prosecutors, judges and many times even the entire juries are ALL found "GUILTY" AFTER having all been suddenly arrested, rushed outside the court rooms and shot days or even weeks before hand. It was aptly named "the TERROR" for a very basic reason. THAT was common Soviet `justice` under Stalin..

[teginder81]

July 1943 at Kursk. Defeat was NOT inevitable when the reich invaded the USSR or declared war on the US. It wasn't inevitable due to stalingrad--as Manstein wrote later, the Germans, who successfully counterattacked in March 1943-- could still have waged a successful defensive war. But Kursk severely degraded the German panzer elite and its commitment deprived the Germans of needed reserves in other sectors of the front such as Orel, and Kharkov, which quickly fell.
By the end or aftermath of Kursk, the reich had lost the war on land in addition to having lost the sea war (May 1943) and air war. Ergo, the war was essentially lost. Manstein and Kruschev concurred that Kursk was the real watershed. The reich still held the initiative after stalingrad--so it attacked at Kursk--but after that defeat the allies had the initiative on all fronts and the reich steadily lost ground until it was all over.

[ljadw]

post 542 could have been written in 1960,where there was still a fainted admiration for Lost Victories and other Baron von MÜnchhausen tales .

[LWD]

Indeed. If a German defeat wasn't inevitable by January of 42 the chances of a German victory were Infinitesimally small. There was perhaps a chance of Germany defeating the USSR but winning the war overall? I don't see it. They simply had no way of forcing a victory and the allies would accept nothing less. By 43 I don't see the Germans even managing to pull that much out of it. Germany was short of too many things required for victory.

[flakbait]

The complete and utter defeat and destruction of Nazi Germany (and Italy, as well as the Empire of Japan, and every other Axis country) was ASSURED as soon as Herr Hitler in his only ultimately beneficial act to humanity insanely declared War upon the United States of America on Dec 10th 1941. And BEFORE you say anything go to Combined Fleet.com, Click `Enter Here` (X2) to the Index and scroll down to `Articles of Interest` between ` Admiral Furashita`s Fleet` and `Strange But True` sections. At the top of the `Articles of Interest" is `Overview of the Economic Realities of the Pacific War". CAREFULLY read the ECONOMIC and INDUSTRIAL capabilities of the United States prewar and realize that by formal prior agreement MORE than 2/3rds of this total is going to be used solely against Nazi Germany . Unless the Allied leadership just suddenly decided enmass to just flat out surrender (good luck with that !) Nazi Germany is even in very late 1941 facing a force similar to a production TSUNAMI; 4 engine bombers, bullets, artillery pieces, building supplies, paint, canned food, jeeps, LSTs, fighter planes, 3 different classes of battleships, winter parkas, shells of every size and type, kitchen sinks, destroyers, parachutes, life jackets, anti aircraft guns, radar sets, destroyer escorts, tanks, gasoline, tool sets, coal, depth charges, weather balloons, aircraft carriers of at least 4 different types, buckets, Liberty ships, machine guns, wiring, and SO much paperwork the Allies probably could have settled for just dropping all of it at once and a single lit match and would have burnt Nazi Germany to the ground in 1 night...you can argue tactics ALL you want. What stand in place `strategy` works against a tsunami ? The correct answer is: NOTHING...rather that shrilly shrieking his declaration of war, Herr Hitler SHOULD have said "I hereby DOOM Nazi Germany to be ravished and UTTERLY DESTROYED by the Allies !"

[flakbait]

oh, btw, did I forget to mention 2 different types of atomic weapons, on TOP of `everything else` ? Must of slipped my mind...argue against THAT.

[von Iron]

By failing to destroy the British army at Dunkirk. Allowing 300k British and French troops to be evacuated was a moral victory for the British people. Destroying that army would have been a devastating blow to not only morale but to the over all defensive ability of the island. The lose of the BEF would have had far reaching political effects in Britain as well. In turn weakening the British resolve and in turn changing the out come of the Battle of Britain, making operation Sea Lion achievable.

[flakbait]

Profoundly correct. Even if the German army lost 1/5th of their force available at Dunkirk, the loss of the evacuated BEF means NO realistic defense of the British Islands at all. NO early North African campaign...significant loss of morale and the "Peace at ANY PRICE" segment suddenly is far more vocal...

[BDV]

von Iron
By failing to destroy the British army at Dunkirk. Allowing 300k British and French troops to be evacuated was a moral victory for the British people. Destroying that army would have been a devastating blow to not only morale but to the over all defensive ability of the island. The lose of the BEF would have had far reaching political effects in Britain as well. In turn weakening the British resolve and in turn changing the out come of the Battle of Britain, making operation Sea Lion achievable.

Easier said than done, as no less than events at Lille,Calais, and Dunkirk in that very theater, at that very time, demonstrate. Also not done not for a lack of trying, Guderian's selective memory notwithstanding.

flakbait
Profoundly correct. Even if the German army lost 1/5th of their force available at Dunkirk, the loss of the evacuated BEF means NO realistic defense of the British Islands at all. NO early North African campaign...significant loss of morale and the "Peace at ANY PRICE" segment suddenly is far more vocal...

Profoundly incorrect, as there is the little regarded detail of subsequent French actions, which historically were as favourable to Germany as they could ever have been projected to be by the rosiest nazi projections.

[LWD]

Profoundly correct. Even if the German army lost 1/5th of their force available at Dunkirk, the loss of the evacuated BEF means NO realistic defense of the British Islands at all. NO early North African campaign...significant loss of morale and the "Peace at ANY PRICE" segment suddenly is far more vocal...

What happens if as a result of destroying the Dunkirk pocket the French are able to firm up their defensive line? The Germans are also un likely to eliminate all the troops in the pocket and the only force that can reasonably acomplish it in time is the armored force and they will be operating understrength in an area not well suited to armor. Which increase the possiblity of the first item I mentioned.

[flakbait]

Believe that you are slightly overlooking the `shock and awe` effect of destroying or capturing the majority of those BEF and French troops upon the remaining French units. Are you saying that the escape of the BEF from Dunkirk actually long term `helped` Nazi Germany ? As far as helping to conquer and only PARTIALLY (at 1st) occupy France, certainly...as far as actually long term winning the war for Germany, NO. The Nazi political structure, idealogy, dependence upon a quick fast series of campaigns as a war winning `strategy` and their early on 1/8th hearted war effort (butter, beer, sausage and oh yeah, a few guns) policy doomed them from the 1st day...the major advantages of those German troops was mobility and surprise and tactical communications, particularly ground to air, allowing the Luftwaffe to greatly assist the usually overstretched and not so well supplied or maintained ground forces, plus an Allied mind set unable to deal with the much faster paced German operations.

[ljadw]

"Only" the half of the BEF escaped at Dunkirk : 190000 from 400000.The others escaped from the French Atlantic harbours (operation Ariel) :for propaganda reasons,Dunkirk has been given an importance which it never had .

Dunkirk or no Dunkirk,Sealion was out of the question : the British Home forces were strong enough to liquidate the fewbatallions the Germans could land .

[flakbait]

Will agree completely.

[LWD]

.... Are you saying that the escape of the BEF from Dunkirk actually long term `helped` Nazi Germany ? As far as helping to conquer and only PARTIALLY (at 1st) occupy France, certainly......

I'm not an expert in this area but from what I've read on these boards the armored units that rested and reformed rather than attacking the Dunkirk pocket were rather instrumental in the actions vs the main French forces to the South when committed there. Send them against Dunkirk and they won't be available in the time frame they were historically. Whether or not this allows the French to form a defensive line that can hold up to the German assault is an open question.

[von Iron]

All valid points, and I do not disagree totally. But..
"Easier said than done"
On May 24 Hitler stopped Guderian's advance at Aa Canal just a mere 12 miles from Dunkirk. Guderian would have taken the last available port city open days before Vereker and his 200k British and 100k French/Belgian troops that retreated with him arrived. I do agree that a quick push South into France to keep the pressure on a disorganized under trained and demoralized French Army was a good idea. But the only decent French troops left were caught in Belgium, there was time for a strike South because France was done. A crushing blow at this point would have spelled disaster politically as well as militarily for Britain.

The Question is..At what point did Germany lose WW2?

This was that point.

von Iron