At what point did Germany lose WW2?

[antfreire]

So perhaps we could say that Hitler lost the war before it even started because after Sept 1, 1939, he won battles, but he never won "his" war.

[LWD]

Welll there was a situation after June of 1940 and before Barbarossa where Germany could likely have concluded the war in a position that could be considered a "win". I don't think that Hitler however could even think along those lines however much less agree to them. If that's possible then Germany hadn't really lost up to that point.

[antfreire]

No obe would join Hitler in an anti communist front .

Seven or eight european countries did.

[antfreire]

Welll there was a situation after June of 1940 and before Barbarossa where Germany could likely have concluded the war in a position that could be considered a "win". I don't think that Hitler however could even think along those lines however much less agree to them. If that's possible then Germany hadn't really lost up to that point.

How could he conclude the war when his biggest enemy was decided to continue it? Basides what he wanted after June 1940 was to conclude the war in the West. We all know with what intentions.

[Graeme Sydney]

.... after June of 1940 and before Barbarossa where Germany could likely have concluded the war in a position that could be considered a "win".

Undoubtedly that was Germany in it strongest position and she might be well advised to stop fighting, go on the defensive and consolidate. But that a long way from peace or an end to the war.

It such a big 'what if' it is hard to contemplate. I would assume Britain would remain 'at war' and would retain the growing support of America. The USSR would also remain as a threat.

To reconcile with GB and the USA there would have to be some sort of withdrawal from occupied Europe. Germany would want guarantees in return. All manageable and negotiable but it would take time (politics :roll: ).

The USSR would only be contained by armed vigilance.

I can see Germany doing that but I can't see Hitler/Nazism doing that.

[LWD]

Welll there was a situation after June of 1940 and before Barbarossa where Germany could likely have concluded the war in a position that could be considered a "win". I don't think that Hitler however could even think along those lines however much less agree to them. If that's possible then Germany hadn't really lost up to that point.

How could he conclude the war when his biggest enemy was decided to continue it?

Simply by offering them a deal that would be hard to pass up. Withdrawing from the Low Countries would be a big point. Include Norway and Denmark and France except for the areas German claimed and I think Britain would have a hard time turning the offer down.

Basides what he wanted after June 1940 was to conclude the war in the West.

Indeed and a peace treaty with Britain and France would conclude the war in the West.

[LWD]

... To reconcile with GB and the USA there would have to be some sort of withdrawal from occupied Europe. Germany would want guarantees in return. All manageable and negotiable but it would take time (politics :roll: ).

Exactly. It would also take a German leader with the vision to see it and the willingness to do it. That pretty much leaves Hitler out of the picture.

I can see Germany doing that but I can't see Hitler/Nazism doing that.

I agree. I doubt it would even occur to Hitler much less would he even consider doing it. Some of the Nazi leaders may have been pragmatic enough to do so but I simply don't know enough to say.

[ljadw]

All wishful-thinking : Britain never would accept anything less than unconditional surrender,there never would be negociations : not with Goering,not with Stauffenberg .

[Webdragon2013]

Therefore the premise of the question is wrong. Germany lost the war when it sought a solely military solution to it's political/diplomatic problems without having the necessary military resources.
Germany lost the war when it started the war.

But even more to the point the very nature of a dictatorship lead by a pathological narcissist guarantees an overwhelmed and faulty decision making process. The strength of Nazi Germany and Hitler were also the seeds of her defeat.

You may consider it as dumbed down but it is a far more realistic assessment based on far more reading and understanding of war, life and human nature than your under informed Hilter/Nazi fanboi argument.

You call my argument a nazi fanboi argument, but your comments are full of un-historical political bias which seem to make it impossible for you to see history -and war- in an objective way.

Though I may forgive you because the overall argument of "As soon as evil Hitler invaded Poland he was doomed as the forces of light rallied to fight him" has been well propagated.
Unfortunately war is alot more complex that this.

Personally I really don't agree that in 1940 after victory of France, the war was going to become an un-winnable world war.
Really I see the situation bit by bit, in a realistic manner the way that the people at the time saw it.

1939-1940, the war was no world war. It was a European war. And the Germans won it.
With the right button pressed, Germany could have ended the war right there and there. And they would have won overall strategically.

The main gamble that Hitler took was Barbarossa. It was the only main strategic gamble in the war.
I remember a quote by French generals (I believe) that said something like "Everybody in the Western world was holding their breath, waiting to hear what would happen in Russia".

This is when it truly failed. When Barbarossa objectives weren't met and the bulk of the Wehrmacht was spent in the frozen tundra in front of Moscow and further operations.

But this idea, that from 1940 and even 1939 the German warfront was completely lost from the get-go, is not only ignoring history, but also reality and I would consider it revisionist.

The war was lost when Hitler decided to invade Russia with faulty intelligence. That is my final say.
Barbarossa and the further battles on the Eastern Front pretty much opened the Western Front for the Allies to come right in like a knife through hot butter.

IF Hitler had not done operations Barbarossa, I can say with full historical certainty that nobody on this forum board and on earth could predict the outcome of what would happen.

Its simply not possible to predict exactly the outcome, as there are too many variables.
Without Russia campaign, Germany with full strength military can do so many things to change things.
- It can make France atlantic coast a fortress.
- It can make the landings in Africa impossible.
- It can use diplomacy.
etc etc etc there are thousands of example.

[LWD]

All wishful-thinking : Britain never would accept anything less than unconditional surrender,there never would be negociations : not with Goering,not with Stauffenberg .

That's your opinion not a fact by any means. It's not at all clear that it is accurate. Especially in say late June or July 1940. After June of 41 it's more likely to be true and even more so once you get into 1942.

[Webdragon2013]

That's your opinion not a fact by any means. It's not at all clear that it is accurate. Especially in say late June or July 1940. After June of 41 it's more likely to be true and even more so once you get into 1942.

One only has to look at the May 1940 War cabinet meeting discussions to see that the idea that Churchill or UK government would never accept peace terms is completely ludicrous.

The only reason that the UK did not accept German peace terms, is that they were ludicrous themselves (dismantling of UK bases, concession of territory, etc)
Hitler offered ridiculously arrogant offers (due to his position as master of Europe) and would not settle for less.

Here is a quote of the cabinet meeting in May 1940 that shows the british attitude.

Halifax then decided to press Churchill on this statement. He asked:
Suppose the French Army collapsed and Herr Hitler made an offer of peace terms. Suppose the French Government said 'We are unable to deal with an offer made to France alone and you must deal with the Allies together.' Suppose Herr Hitler, being anxious to end the war through knowledge of his own internal weaknesses, offered terms to France and England, would the Prime Minister be prepared to discuss them?
Churchill said that he "would not join France in asking for terms; but if were told what the terms offered were, would be prepared to consider them."

[ljadw]

No :at no moment during the war was the British government willing to negociate with Germany : Britain demanded from the beginning unconditional surrender,besides,Britain never was in the situation where it would have to negociate,and Germany never wanted to negociate : its demands were that Britain would become a satellite.Neither could settle for less : the LSS would parade through Downing Street,or the Guards would parade Unter den Linden .

[ljadw]

[quote="Webdragon2013"
Hitler offered ridiculously arrogant offers

][/quote]

No : HItler would be very stupid to ask less .

[BDV]

Unless the quote posted by WebDragon is a complete fabrication (not of his, of his source) Churchill (and the British governement) had left a small space for discussion and negotiation.

It was Adolf and his band of under-thugs who were unprepared (in many ways) to seize such opportunity.

[Webdragon2013]

No : HItler would be very stupid to ask less .

If Hitler had the foresight to see that the USA would enter the war on the side of Britain, and also that the USA was a formidable adversary (USA was by no means considered a major military danger before WW2), then he would have made peace with the UK no matter the cost.

But you're right...Hitler in the situation he was in probably did what anybody would do at the time.
When you understand that the English can be defeated without invading England, or do not need to be defeated at all (in Hitler's game plan), then it makes sense.

I mean if you think about it...Hitler's game plan was basically to destroy the USSR, and then to build his Reich, and it did not matter to him then how long it would take for Britain to make peace. He would slowly conquer British Africa, India would probably revolt in one way or the other anyway, Vichy would cooperate, Japan would destroy the British possessions in Asia.

All in all if Barbarossa had succeeded Hitler wouldnt have much of a problem with Britain alone.

Britain alone couldnt complete D day or threaten Germany of an invasion of its own. Ever.