At what point did Germany lose WW2?

[Globalization41]

Maybe someone already said this, but I propose that Germany lost in April 1940 when it invaded Denmark and Norway. The invasion of these two neutral countries turned what had been a limited war between Germany, France and the British Empire into an all encompassing war that would quickly swallow up most of the countries in Europe. It was a propaganda nightmare for Germany in the eyes of the remaining neutral countries (especially, of course, the United States), where Germany soon came to be viewed as an unstoppable giant bent on world domination. In an election year no less. Anti-war candidates didn't stand a chance after this, and the USA was destined to enter the war and crush Germany.

Even if Russia falls completely in the summer of 1941, Germany is left in the position of needing to defend Norway, northern France, and North Africa from invasion. Germany isn't going to get naval superiority in the Mediterranean, so the United States can still land virtually unopposed in North Africa in November 1942. Once North Africa falls, Germany faces potential invasion in southern France, Italy and Greece. And the United States can also invade through Spain or Turkey if it chooses. And the Allies can also invade through the Caucasus.

Germany simply doesn't have enough manpower to defend all these places from invasion. And its industrial capacity is still dwarfed by the United States, and even outproduced by Britain in aircraft.

The Allies would bomb Baku into oblivion (and eventually send an army to capture it), so Germany is operating with drastically less fuel than the Allies. This weakens every aspect of Germany's war effort, from domestic production to keeping its planes fueled.

Eventually, the corners of Germany's far flung empire start to crumble one by one. It's just a matter of time. And with the A-bomb on its way, Germany needs to surrender or face total annihilation.

1/19/2019, Post #962, At What Point Did Germany Lose WWII?

The U.S. was militarily weak prior to Pearl Harbor. Many of the Army's draftees were set for release just before Pearl Harbor, but their duty was extended by one vote in the House. … The Allied landing in Italy, and advance, was opposed and stalled by only a small fraction of all German military units. Without the diversion of the Eastern Front, the Democracies would have lost maybe a million men just establishing a beachhead. … The A-bomb was produced to defeat Nazism. F.D.R.'s priority was defeating Hitler. He had a blank check from Congress. Had Hitler not lost so much of his war machine in the Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk blunders, the Germans might have had enough fighting power to contain the Normandy beachhead long enough for the Allies to deploy the A-bomb.

Globalization41.

[Michael Kenny]

. Had Hitler not lost so much of his war machine in the Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk blunders, the Germans might have had enough fighting power to contain the Normandy beachhead long enough for the Allies to deploy the A-bomb.

So you think the army that got handed its backside in Russia would suddenly become 'unbeatable' if it was in France?

[Paul Lakowski]

Germany certainly planned to fight against the United States, especially after inevitable US intervention became apparent in 1940, but even at that point, Germany still drastically underestimated the overwhelming military might of the United States that would dwarf anything Germany could bring against it.

Germany pinned all its hopes on defeating Russia in a quick summer campaign and then putting all its effort into the KM and LW. But even if Russia had fallen, the United States still would have dwarfed Germany militarily, and it would have been impossible for Germany to defend its over-extended empire against a United States that had the logistical capacity to strike anywhere at any time.

If you change the above paragraph from "Germans" to "Hitler" you are much closer to the truth , because the German Wehrmacht had no intention of waging war against the western world until after they had established a fully mechanized Wehrmacht based on a total war industry , with a pan European industrial base. This three phase 15 year program was begun at the end of the 1920s, meaning these preparations for war could not be completed before 1945.

As it was -Schacht told Hitler in 1935, the program may have to be deferred until the end of the 1940s. Hitler Balked at this time table and promptly initiated his FOUR YEAR PLAN, which he implemented at the expense of the LW & KM. His aim was to fast track this 15-20 year programme into five years , but even that timetable was pre-emptied by Munich , which suddenly 'showed Hitler the real enemy was America'. Hitler mind you, not the Wehrmacht!

[Paul Lakowski]

. Had Hitler not lost so much of his war machine in the Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk blunders, the Germans might have had enough fighting power to contain the Normandy beachhead long enough for the Allies to deploy the A-bomb.

So you think the army that got handed its backside in Russia would suddenly become 'unbeatable' if it was in France?

If it had not been gutted by the Russians, then possibly yes.

[Michael Kenny]

If it had not been gutted by the Russians, then possibly yes.

There were more Panzer Divisions rated 'I' in Normandy than there were rated 'I' in Russia. Also the troop density in Normandy was much greater.

This map is to scale and shows just how packed the Normandy front was compared to BAGRATION.

[Globalization41]

More divisions, equipment, fuel, men, and ammo against the Allies on Normandy would have made it more difficult to establish the beachhead and break out. It could have become a siege, but F.D.R. most likely would not have given up easily. If powerful armies like those on the Eastern Front had been available in the West, then Italy or the Atlantic Coast of France might have been a better landing choice for the Allies. … The supply lines to Normandy were short. The Allies would have been pouring in men and equipment as fast as possible. It would have been like the Eastern Front compressed. … The losses suffered by the Allies on D-Day were about one-half of the daily average for the Soviets.

Globalization41.

[Paul Lakowski]

If it had not been gutted by the Russians, then possibly yes.

There were more Panzer Divisions rated 'I' in Normandy than there were rated 'I' in Russia. Also the troop density in Normandy was much greater.

Bagration Normandy mapds (1)v.jpg

There is a hell of a lot more to winning campaigns/wars than a comparison of divisions.

[HistoryGeek2019]

Germany certainly planned to fight against the United States, especially after inevitable US intervention became apparent in 1940, but even at that point, Germany still drastically underestimated the overwhelming military might of the United States that would dwarf anything Germany could bring against it.

Germany pinned all its hopes on defeating Russia in a quick summer campaign and then putting all its effort into the KM and LW. But even if Russia had fallen, the United States still would have dwarfed Germany militarily, and it would have been impossible for Germany to defend its over-extended empire against a United States that had the logistical capacity to strike anywhere at any time.

If you change the above paragraph from "Germans" to "Hitler" you are much closer to the truth , because the German Wehrmacht had no intention of waging war against the western world until after they had established a fully mechanized Wehrmacht based on a total war industry , with a pan European industrial base. This three phase 15 year program was begun at the end of the 1920s, meaning these preparations for war could not be completed before 1945.

As it was -Schacht told Hitler in 1935, the program may have to be deferred until the end of the 1940s. Hitler Balked at this time table and promptly initiated his FOUR YEAR PLAN, which he implemented at the expense of the LW & KM. His aim was to fast track this 15-20 year programme into five years , but even that timetable was pre-emptied by Munich , which suddenly 'showed Hitler the real enemy was America'. Hitler mind you, not the Wehrmacht!

Even a 15 year program based on sucking up the resources of Europe (which aren't that much) woefully underestimated the United States. And it wasn't just Hitler. The Wehrmacht senior leadership completely underestimated the industrial might of the United States, as Dr. Geoffrey Megargee explains here:

https://youtu.be/bLJol2jcOIE?t=2429

Schacht was a civilian and had nothing to do with Wehrmacht leadership. He wanted a more balanced economy with less military spending to prevent economic collapse. I've never heard of any generals complaining when he got the boot.

[Michael Kenny]

If powerful armies like those on the Eastern Front had been available in the West.............

I believe the argument being used here is that the German Armies in The East were broken-down under-manned and under-supplied shells and thus not that powerful after all.
The huge German Army was only needed to fight in Russia. If there was not a Russian Front the Germans would not keep that size of a standing Army.

[Globalization41]

In 1935, Hitler was worried the growing strength of the Soviet Union. He aimed to build up his war machine quickly. In ten years, the Soviets would be too strong for Hitler to set up his long-proclaimed desire to establish a land-locked backyard empire in the Ukrainian breadbasket. … The choices for the Allies during the Munich crises were not good. However, the political will of the Allies to fight increased along with Hitler's threat of more invasions. … F.D.R. was just a bystander during Munich. He wanted in, but his hands were tied by Congress. Had Roosevelt jumped in prior to Pearl Harbor, he would not have gotten the necessary blank check needed to prosecute the war to an unconditional surrender.

Globalization41.

[Michael Kenny]

There is a hell of a lot more to winning campaigns/wars than a comparison of divisions.

I am trying to do is get through to those who seem to believe a German force/Army just has to reach the battlefield and they are assured of a victory. It is a difficult mind-set to escape once it infects. The Allied Armies that landed on June 6th were specifically designed and crafted to find, fix and then destroy ANY German force they encountered. Something they did in spectacular fashion. To read some of the replies here you would think that the Allies had to be forced at gunpoint from their landing craft and then spent all their time ashore being soundly trounced whenever they had the audacity to advance and engage. We hear nothing but 'this' Allied attack was a 'failure' and 'that' Allied attack was stopped and destroyed. Every single engagement seems to end in a German victory and even when the Germans have to admit a defeat/retreat a 'moral victory' is then claimed if more Shermans were lost than Panthers!

[HistoryGeek2019]

There is a hell of a lot more to winning campaigns/wars than a comparison of divisions.

I am trying to do is get through to those who seem to believe a German force/Army just has to reach the battlefield and they are assured of a victory. It is a difficult mind-set to escape once it infects. The Allied Armies that landed on June 6th were specifically designed and crafted to find, fix and then destroy ANY German force they encountered. Something they did in spectacular fashion. To read some of the replies here you would think that the Allies had to be forced at gunpoint from their landing craft and then spent all their time ashore being soundly trounced whenever they had the audacity to advance and engage. We hear nothing but 'this' Allied attack was a 'failure' and 'that' Allied attack was stopped and destroyed. Every single engagement seems to end in a German victory and even when the Germans have to admit a defeat/retreat a 'moral victory' is then claimed if more Shermans were lost than Panthers!

I know right. If you look at what actually happened in the war, America had its way with the Germans from start to finish. America landed in North Africa in November 1942, and less than 2 years later had captured Rome and invaded southern France, but to hear some people, the Germans won by "delaying" the Americans. And in Normandy and France the Allies absolutely obliterated the German army. Even in the Battle of the Bulge, the mighty Wehrmacht was not only delayed, but stopped, by third tier American units. And after that the German army was once again obliterated by the United States.

Germany brought a knife to a gun fight.

[Globalization41]

Without the Russian Front Hitler could have cut off the Med. at Gibraltar, secured North Africa, captured the Suez Canal, occupied the Turkish Straits, taken Malta, and invaded England successfully, all that with far less divisions required in the East. … It would depend on the chronological time of the war as to whether the German Army would win any particular battle. They won Crete, but took heavy losses. The U.S.S.R. wasn't even in the war during the Battle of Crete. Stalin was working hard to get the Red Army in shape in May 1941. … Comparing the German Army of 1944 to the blitzkriegers of 1941 might reveal the 1944 lineup was better. Russia and the U.S. were in the minor leagues in 1941. Their combined military programs by 1944 were far superior to the Axis. … The 1944 German Army (seemingly) would have been just as overwhelming in 1941 as the original blitzkriegers were. Correct me if I'm wrong. … A logical guess at what point the German and Russian Armies reached operational equality might be the 1943 Battle of Kursk. … The earlier 1943 Battle of Kharkov was fought between two finely-tuned heavyweight war machines going all out during freezing Winter blizzards.

Globalization41.

[Cult Icon]

I know right. If you look at what actually happened in the war, America had its way with the Germans from start to finish. America landed in North Africa in November 1942, and less than 2 years later had captured Rome and invaded southern France, but to hear some people, the Germans won by "delaying" the Americans. And in Normandy and France the Allies absolutely obliterated the German army. Even in the Battle of the Bulge, the mighty Wehrmacht was not only delayed, but stopped, by third tier American units. And after that the German army was once again obliterated by the United States.

You have major errors in your post. The German forces in the Ardennes were 3rd tier (KW III, IV common) and not really offensive capable. The US forces were initially outnumbered but then quickly reinforced their position to superiority. Certainly in some areas of the defensive battle their artillery was vastly superior. They were definitely not "third rate" given the severe tactical defeats of certain US infantry and armored divisions, many of which were much better equipped than the formations that pushed through them.

The German forces were- qualitatively- good at defense and delaying regardless of vast numerical superiority- even as their offensive capabilities dried up in 1943. This tends to lead to a lot of alternate history scenarios of the German forces bleeding their enemies dry if they had 2 times, 3, times, etc. more forces..

[Michael Kenny]

Without the Russian Front Hitler could have cut off the Med. at Gibraltar, secured North Africa, captured the Suez Canal, occupied the Turkish Straits, taken Malta, and invaded England successfully, all that with far less divisions required in the East. …

I have heard something like that before.........what was it again?
Ah yes, ' You only have to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down,'
How did that prediction turn out?