At what point did Germany lose WW2?

[LWD]

No :at no moment during the war was the British government willing to negociate with Germany : Britain demanded from the beginning unconditional surrender,

The facts seem to be in opposition to your unsupported opinion. Nothing new in that though.

Neither could settle for less ...

Again an unsuppored opinion masquerading as a fact. unfortunatly typical.

[ljadw]

1) I challenge you to produce evidence that during WWII,the British government was willing to negotiate with Hitler,or one of his successors .
On 3 september 1939,Chamberlain indicated what would be the tendency of the war : it would be a war to destroy nazism and to eliminate definitively Germany as a military power.And Churchill said the same .

2) At Versailles,Germany received very harsh peace conditions,such as : disarmament,allied occupation troops,allied inspectors,etc: the reason was that the Allies wanted to prevent Germany to become a military power again .
In june 1940,France also was faced with very harsh armistice conditions,as:disarmament,occupation forces,German inspectors,etc: the reason was that Germany wanted to prevent France becoming again a military power.

If there were British-German negotiations,the German conditions also would be very harsh : disarmament,occupation troops,German inspectors,because,otherwise Britain would rearm and again could become a military power :immediately,the Germans would demand the disbandment of the RAF,otherwise,if there was a new war,the RAF could do to the German cities what the LW did to the British cities .

3)Chamberlain on 3 september 1939 in the Commons :"I trust I may live to see the day when HITLERISM HAS BEEN DESTROYED ."

Thus,negotiations with Germany :out of the question ..



Do you really think that the Germans would be that stupid to leave behind them a strong Britain while they were fighting in the SU ? :roll:

[LWD]

1) I challenge you to produce evidence that during WWII,the British government was willing to negotiate with Hitler,or one of his successors .

I challenge you to find evidence that they weren't. However in post 642 welldragon has mentioned some evidence. It's also been discussed elsewhere on this board in some detail.

... 3)Chamberlain on 3 september 1939 in the Commons :"I trust I may live to see the day when HITLERISM HAS BEEN DESTROYED ."

Politicians say all sorts of things. Occasionally they even mean them (at the time).

Thus,negotiations with Germany :out of the question ...

One of these days I hope you will learn to differentiate between your opinions and facts. I'm not holding my breath though.

[Webdragon2013]

1) I challenge you to produce evidence that during WWII,the British government was willing to negotiate with Hitler,or one of his successors .
On 3 september 1939,Chamberlain indicated what would be the tendency of the war : it would be a war to destroy nazism and to eliminate definitively Germany as a military power.And Churchill said the same .

2) At Versailles,Germany received very harsh peace conditions,such as : disarmament,allied occupation troops,allied inspectors,etc: the reason was that the Allies wanted to prevent Germany to become a military power again .
In june 1940,France also was faced with very harsh armistice conditions,as:disarmament,occupation forces,German inspectors,etc: the reason was that Germany wanted to prevent France becoming again a military power.

If there were British-German negotiations,the German conditions also would be very harsh : disarmament,occupation troops,German inspectors,because,otherwise Britain would rearm and again could become a military power :immediately,the Germans would demand the disbandment of the RAF,otherwise,if there was a new war,the RAF could do to the German cities what the LW did to the British cities .

3)Chamberlain on 3 september 1939 in the Commons :"I trust I may live to see the day when HITLERISM HAS BEEN DESTROYED ."

Thus,negotiations with Germany :out of the question ..



Do you really think that the Germans would be that stupid to leave behind them a strong Britain while they were fighting in the SU ? :roll:

Essentially, Britain would never propose a peace deal to Germany whilst in a position of power, because if they were in a position of power, they wanted to see the extinction of the German state no matter what.

However, the evidence is that they would potentially have agreed a peace deal in May 1940 at the low point of the war, if the terms were right (this was a time when there was no guarantee of victory on both sides). No such proper terms were ever proposed by the Germans (according to the British).

And then of course, as the Germans after 1940 were rarely in position of power, all further German peace proposals lost their negotiation value.

Really there are two important points out of this story:
1. The difference in objectives between Germany and Britain. Britain if in a position of power no matter what wanted to fight Germany. Germany in a position of power did not have in its objective the dismantlement of the British Empire and was willing to conclude a (harsh) peace.

2. There was thus a single but short window of opportunity for peace. It was after the fall of France and before Barbarossa. There and then a generous peace deal could have been offered by the Germans, although at the time it would have made no sense.

I can now see why it didn't happen...You would have to be a master diplomat to figure out something the British would accept, and something that would still be acceptable to the Germans. And again there would be no guarantee the Brits wouldnt declare war on Germany once she invaded the USSR.

Its all intellectual imagination but its interesting.
So in my opinion, going back to original topic...I still think the safest course of action for Germans in 1940 would have been to not undertake Barbarossa and wait and see and engaging Britain on all fronts whilst keeping the diplomatic corridors open.

Interesting what if...

[Graeme Sydney]

You call my argument a nazi fanboi argument,.....

"The war was lost when Hitler decided to invade Russia with faulty intelligence." Wow, now there an Hitler fanboi apology if there has even been one.

The failure of Barbarossa and Hitler's decision making were far greater than faulty intelligence. Try poor strategic planning, poor logistic planning, indecision and interference with operational planning. Read through the forum all these issues and more have been thoroughly discussed and debated. Faulty intelligence was the least of the causes.

"That is my final say." Wow, now there the sign of a truly open mind. :roll: Or not

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.

Give one example of my "un-historical political bias".

"Though I may forgive ..."

Ah, the moral high ground, how sweet it is been able to look down on lesser people.

...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.

Neither my description nor my thinking is along such romanticized lines. And I would consider the concept that 'Germany lost the war when she started the war' is a rarely advocated or held position.

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.

Well, you are right for a change (is suppose if you play the odds you will be right every now and then).

WW2 is complex and it can be viewed at the tactical, operational, strategic and Geo-political levels. You should read more to understand each of these levels and how they inter-react.

"Really I see the situation bit by bit, in a realistic manner the way that the people at the time saw it." I'm sure you do. But like "people" of the time you are too close to the problem and are not fully informed. And that applies to both side but most certainly applies to the Germany side. Most German Generals and even Field Marshalls were not well enough informed to make strategic and geo-political judgments - until it become too late and overwhelmingly obvious.

If you read more with an open mind you could be in a bett
er position to judge.

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 European war was a local war with geo-political consequences which is why both America and Russia were watching closely and making decisions that would impact on the final outcome.

In 1941 I would consider that Germany had won a victory half way between a operation and strategic victory. Strategically she was in a better geographic position but she had not secured the necessary strategic resources (particularly oil) nor did she have a blue water fleet or control of the oceans. If the fighting stopped then and there and even signed peace treaties with all of Europe she was still in a weak strategic position arrayed against the USA and Russia.

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.

You either can't read straight or you can't remember what was argued. I've said that Germany could not win the war relying on the military only.

As for "not only ignoring history, but also reality", well last time I checked Germany was totally smashed, destroyed, decimated and dismembered by the WW2. I think if you study the war, in both timeline and physical outcomes, not from the short term operational and strategic level but also from a Geo-political level you will see I have ignored neither historical facts nor reality.

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.

That either the dismissive arrogance of youth or ignorance.

Again, look through this forum, this issued has been tirelessly discussed and debated.

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.

[/b]
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.

Eh! What are you trying to argue there? Are you saying if Germany doesn't attack Russia Germany has a whole range of options and therefore she wins?

I'll agree with one of your points; "Its simply not possible to predict exactly the outcome" but that doesn't preclude general predictions based on the known facts. And the 1940 historical facts were that Germany was in a weak strategical/Geo-political position with enraged enemies arrayed against her. In a straight military fight she was about to be defeated.

And whats more, that was predictable in 1932, 1939 and in 1940.

[ljadw]

1) I challenge you to produce evidence that during WWII,the British government was willing to negotiate with Hitler,or one of his successors .

I challenge you to find evidence that they weren't. However in post 642 welldragon has mentioned some evidence. It's also been discussed elsewhere on this board in some detail.

... 3)Chamberlain on 3 september 1939 in the Commons :"I trust I may live to see the day when HITLERISM HAS BEEN DESTROYED ."

Politicians say all sorts of things. Occasionally they even mean them (at the time).

Thus,negotiations with Germany :out of the question ...

One of these days I hope you will learn to differentiate between your opinions and facts. I'm not holding my breath though.

2 times,Hitler proposed peace (on his conditions) and each time,Britain refused : after the German victory in Poland,and after the German victory against France .

This is evidence that Britain was not willing to negociate with Germany .

Of course you will deny this by going of-topic .

[ljadw]

From this forum :Should Churchill have accepted Hitler's peace offer?

Post 4 :In any case,Churchill was right .Hitler had already proved that you couldn't trust him .

This post was written by a certain LWD .

[LWD]

1) I challenge you to produce evidence that during WWII,the British government was willing to negotiate with Hitler,or one of his successors .

I challenge you to find evidence that they weren't. However in post 642 welldragon has mentioned some evidence. It's also been discussed elsewhere on this board in some detail.

... 3)Chamberlain on 3 september 1939 in the Commons :"I trust I may live to see the day when HITLERISM HAS BEEN DESTROYED ."

Politicians say all sorts of things. Occasionally they even mean them (at the time).

Thus,negotiations with Germany :out of the question ...

One of these days I hope you will learn to differentiate between your opinions and facts. I'm not holding my breath though.

2 times,Hitler proposed peace (on his conditions) and each time,Britain refused : after the German victory in Poland,and after the German victory against France .

This is evidence that Britain was not willing to negociate with Germany .

??? Hitler never proposed peace to Great Britain. He may have hinted at being willing to but that's a different matter. Furthermore the terms he hinted at were hardly acceptable to Great Britain. Indeed they weren't even acceptable as a starting point. That is no evidence at all that GB woudn't negotiate with Germany just that they wouldn't unless the terms were reasonable.

Of course you will deny this by going of-topic .

No as usual I will deny it by refutilng your logic and pointing out errors in your assumptions.

[ljadw]

At 6 october 1939 and at 19 juky 1940,Hitler proposed peace to Britain/France ,and to Britain .

Hitler's conditions never would be reasonable for Britain and Britain's conditions never would be reasonable for Hitler .

[steverodgers801]

Hitler negotiated a treaty with Britain at the expense of the Czechs and then broke the agreement, on what basis should Britain take any more of Hitler's clearly useless promises. The Rhineland, no more demands; Austria, no more demands; the Sudetenland, no more demands. See a pattern???

[Webdragon2013]

Hitler negotiated a treaty with Britain at the expense of the Czechs and then broke the agreement, on what basis should Britain take any more of Hitler's clearly useless promises. The Rhineland, no more demands; Austria, no more demands; the Sudetenland, no more demands. See a pattern???

You're comparing Apples and oranges (wartime diplomacy and peacetime diplomacy).
Not to mention that the lands you mentioned (Rhineland, German-Austria, and the Sudetenland) aren't exactly non-German questions and something that the British have authority upon to decide the will of the people there.

You're also painting a one-sided picture about the politics involved here and why Hitler did what he did.

I would agree that two events are definitely controversial:
1. The dismantlement of Czechoslovakia.
2. The invasion of Poland.

But both those events are extremely complex. They are painted as one sided German events whilst multiple parties were involved.

1. Czechoslovakia pretty much dismantled itself. It was multi-ethnic state whose people didn't want to stick together.
Multiple states grabbed land when Czechoslovakia collapsed including Poland. Not just Germany.

2. The invasion of Poland wasn't just German. It was USSR/German pact to dismantle it.

[LWD]

At 6 october 1939 and at 19 juky 1940,Hitler proposed peace to Britain/France ,and to Britain .

Sources please.

Hitler's conditions never would be reasonable for Britain and Britain's conditions never would be reasonable for Hitler .

That is probably accurate. However that doesn't mean that there weren't conditions that could bring one or the other party to the table and indeed that there weren't terms that might be acceptable to both Great Britain and Germany (all be it one where Hitler was no longer in charge).

[Webdragon2013]

At 6 october 1939 and at 19 juky 1940,Hitler proposed peace to Britain/France ,and to Britain .

Sources please.

Ljadw probably refers to two peace proposals which were announced to the German parliament by Adolf Hitler.
- The first on 6th October 1939 to France & Britain
- The second after the successful French campaign and before the start of hostilities with Britain on British soil, on 19 July 1940.

You can read the lengthy speech of 19th July 1940 to the Deputy of the German Parliament here:
http://justice4germans.files.wordpress. ... glish1.pdf

On page 23 the October 6th peace proposal is mentioned.
And on page 24 the new peace proposal (to England only) is announced.

The fact that this is announced to the German Reichstag is proof enough that the proposals were real.
As to the exact documents of the proposal and to whom they were sent (which diplomatic channel, etc),
This is an excellent question and I would be interested in the answer. But to my knowledge there is no exact document that has been released by ex-Allies or German government. Maybe its classified.

I would fully understand that the diplomatic discussions between UK & Germany in 1940 are still classified.
These could be very embarrassing as who knows the length the Germans and British were willing to go to stop the war.
This goes against the history of "Resolute Churchill unwilling to ever make peace with Hitler"

[ljadw]

The question is :why would Britain be willing to start negotiations with Germany ?After all,Britain's position was not that desperate that it was forced to do business with Hitler.Second point (what some people still deny/refuse to accept/to understand):WW2 was no war as the old ones,where,if one was losing,one would make peace and accept one had to pay because one was losing : no :from in the beginning,WW 2 was an ideological war: democracy against fascism,it was not as in 1870,where,after Sedan,Bismarck and Napoleon III were chatting sociably ,this time,the loser knew he would be hanged.If some one started to negociate,the result would be unconditional surrender .Already in 1918,the slogan was : hang the Kaiser. Now,it was,from the beginning:hang Hitler .
If Britain wanted to stop the war,it would have taken the initiative.It did not ,because,there were 2 choices : to become a German satellite or to continue the war,and,it was convinced,rightly,that it only had to hold out:the longer the war,the bigger the chances to win .

[LWD]

...
Ljadw probably refers to two peace proposals which were announced to the German parliament by Adolf Hitler.
- The first on 6th October 1939 to France & Britain
- The second after the successful French campaign and before the start of hostilities with Britain on British soil, on 19 July 1940.
...
The fact that this is announced to the German Reichstag is proof enough that the proposals were real.

Not really. A propaganda speach to the Reichstag is not a peace proposal to Great Britain. It may indicate that he is willilng to talk but that's a different matter.

As to the exact documents of the proposal and to whom they were sent (which diplomatic channel, etc),
This is an excellent question and I would be interested in the answer. But to my knowledge there is no exact document that has been released by ex-Allies or German government. Maybe its classified.

Or maybe it doesn't exist. As documented elsewhere on this forum there were discussions between individuals I've yet to see anything to indicate that the two governments got any where close to exchanging peace proposals.