At what point did Germany lose WW2?

[Yuri]

41-10-31_06-22 14PzDiv Supply Art.jpg

[fletcher_101]

There are multiple interrogations of Goering after the end of the war and in one of them, he was asked this question. He replied it wasn't until 1945 that he believed Germany actually lost the war, because in his mind, Germany still had the potential for a negotiated settlement up until 1945. I think that was wishful thinking on his part, but if the question is when did they actually LOSE the war, meaning there was no longer any question of a negotiated settlement AND Germany would be forced to surrender, maybe the answer is when the Allies imposed a second front, whether in Italy in 1943 or France in 1944. At that point, the Allies had too much invested to halt their operations and I don't think Germany could survive the attrition of a two-front war.
All this talk about trains schedules and supplies is interesting, but is this really why they lost the war instead of losing a battle?

[ljadw]

There are multiple interrogations of Goering after the end of the war and in one of them, he was asked this question. He replied it wasn't until 1945 that he believed Germany actually lost the war, because in his mind, Germany still had the potential for a negotiated settlement up until 1945. I think that was wishful thinking on his part, but if the question is when did they actually LOSE the war, meaning there was no longer any question of a negotiated settlement AND Germany would be forced to surrender, maybe the answer is when the Allies imposed a second front, whether in Italy in 1943 or France in 1944. At that point, the Allies had too much invested to halt their operations and I don't think Germany could survive the attrition of a two-front war.
All this talk about trains schedules and supplies is interesting, but is this really why they lost the war instead of losing a battle?

Of course not : they lost the war in the East in July 1941,they lost the war against Britain in July 1940 :all Britain had to do was to continue the fight and the US would come to help them : the Yanks would come .

[Aida1]

There are multiple interrogations of Goering after the end of the war and in one of them, he was asked this question. He replied it wasn't until 1945 that he believed Germany actually lost the war, because in his mind, Germany still had the potential for a negotiated settlement up until 1945. I think that was wishful thinking on his part, but if the question is when did they actually LOSE the war, meaning there was no longer any question of a negotiated settlement AND Germany would be forced to surrender, maybe the answer is when the Allies imposed a second front, whether in Italy in 1943 or France in 1944. At that point, the Allies had too much invested to halt their operations and I don't think Germany could survive the attrition of a two-front war.
All this talk about trains schedules and supplies is interesting, but is this really why they lost the war instead of losing a battle?

Of course not : they lost the war in the East in July 1941,they lost the war against Britain in July 1940 :all Britain had to do was to continue the fight and the US would come to help them : the Yanks would come .

Simplistic comment intended to make any discussion impossible.

[ljadw]

I see : what Keitel told Bock on July 225 1941 was simplistic ?
That Hitler hoped on a Japanese intervention against the Soviets,which was not coming, to avoid defeat,was simplistic ?
That Hitler was anxious after ONE month of fighting and asked himself : how many time do I still have to eliminate the Soviets and how many time do I need to do it ? This was also simplistic ?
That Keitel and Hitler said that a quick collaps of the USSR was necessary as Germany could not conquer Russia ,was this also simplistic ?
That the US presidential elections of November 1940 were fought between 2 anti-German interventionists (Willkie and FDR ) ,that is also simplistic ?
That the main reason for Barbarossa was to avoid,postpone war with the US by defeating the Soviets ,is that also simplistic ?
That we know that a successful Barbarossa would not prevent or even postpone war with the US ,is that also simplistic ?

[Penchanski]

they lost the war against Britain in July 1940

I'd argue even before that.

Before the losses of their Navy and air transports in Norway it was unlikely they could knock Britain out. After, it was impossible.

[ljadw]

Germany could only win when its opponents gave up .As after the Fall of France US almost openly choose the side of Britain and as Germany had no means to do something against US,the die was cast .
One should also not give too much importance to Weserübung, as Sealion was possible only after the collaps of Britain .The RN, the RAF,the Home Army could on their own prevent a landing or eliminate the landed forces after a few days .
Of course, if after the fall of France, Britain had capitulated, one can argue that Germany had won , but still it would lose the peace and collaps before 1953 .

[Boby]

Even assuming you are right, why 1953 and not 1948, or 1950?

[ljadw]

I said 1953 ,because after a German victory against Britain in 1940/1941 ( without Barbarossa ) ,or later ( with a successful Barbarossa ),the Third Reich would not last another 15 year,maybe 10 years ,but not much longer .
And the reasons are obvious
In case 1 (Britain eliminated without Barbarossa ) ,Germany would need an occupation force of more than 1 million men , if you add the LW,KM, the forces in Germany, the forces on the Soviet border,this means a WM of 2,5 million men for generations ,something which was impossible for a country of 80 million people,demographically,financially,politically .
In case 2 (Britain eliminated after/because of a successful Barbarossa ) Germany would need for generations a WM with a manpower of more than 4 million men, which was also impossible for the same reasons .
And a successful Barbarossa would ruin the German economy and the Third Reich : it would take at least 20 year before the enormous investments in Russia would yield the first gains ,and, Germany needed NOTHING from what was available in the USSR .
It did not need,after a successful war, the oil from the Caucasus,and the export of this oil to Germany would ruin the synthetic oil industry. Besides , why would the average German buy this oil and with what money ? And, what would Germany do with the oil from the Caucasus,if after a successful Barbarossa, Britain, aided by the US ,would continue the war ? If the USSR was eliminated,Germany would need LESS oil,not more oil .
It was the same for the Russian agricultural products : millions of German farmers were needed and they were not available (The Ostflucht started already before WW1 ) and why would the average German buy these products ? If they were cheaper than the domestic ones, the domestic German agriculture would be destroyed with very unpleasant political consequences .If they were more expensive,no one would buy them and the countless of billions that were invested would be lost .
The truth is that no European country could and can dominate, occupy, conquer ,etc, Europe .Very soon the USSR (with more than 200 million inhabitants ) lost the control of its East European satellites, why would 80 million Germans be able to control Europe from Gibraltar to the Ural ?
Even the US ( 330 million people ) is losing its grip on Europe .

[mezsat2]

I said 1953 ,because after a German victory against Britain in 1940/1941 ( without Barbarossa ) ,or later ( with a successful Barbarossa ),the Third Reich would not last another 15 year,maybe 10 years ,but not much longer .
And the reasons are obvious
In case 1 (Britain eliminated without Barbarossa ) ,Germany would need an occupation force of more than 1 million men , if you add the LW,KM, the forces in Germany, the forces on the Soviet border,this means a WM of 2,5 million men for generations ,something which was impossible for a country of 80 million people,demographically,financially,politically .
In case 2 (Britain eliminated after/because of a successful Barbarossa ) Germany would need for generations a WM with a manpower of more than 4 million men, which was also impossible for the same reasons .
And a successful Barbarossa would ruin the German economy and the Third Reich : it would take at least 20 year before the enormous investments in Russia would yield the first gains ,and, Germany needed NOTHING from what was available in the USSR .
It did not need,after a successful war, the oil from the Caucasus,and the export of this oil to Germany would ruin the synthetic oil industry. Besides , why would the average German buy this oil and with what money ? And, what would Germany do with the oil from the Caucasus,if after a successful Barbarossa, Britain, aided by the US ,would continue the war ? If the USSR was eliminated,Germany would need LESS oil,not more oil .
It was the same for the Russian agricultural products : millions of German farmers were needed and they were not available (The Ostflucht started already before WW1 ) and why would the average German buy these products ? If they were cheaper than the domestic ones, the domestic German agriculture would be destroyed with very unpleasant political consequences .If they were more expensive,no one would buy them and the countless of billions that were invested would be lost .
The truth is that no European country could and can dominate, occupy, conquer ,etc, Europe .Very soon the USSR (with more than 200 million inhabitants ) lost the control of its East European satellites, why would 80 million Germans be able to control Europe from Gibraltar to the Ural ?
Even the US ( 330 million people ) is losing its grip on Europe .

I know I'm beating a dead horse with an aluminum baseball bat here, but how did Hitler calculate that it was even remotely possible to transport Caucasian oil back to the Reich for refinement when he couldn't supply food, ammo, fuel...the most basic of necessities to his invading forces?

The mid-east offered the path of least resistance and also an enthusiastic populace. Lybia, to this day, is bursting oil straight out of the ground.

[ljadw]

It was not possible to transport Caucasian oil to the Reich.
The whole thing was a straw and the Germans were grasping at straws and convinced themselves that
a it was possible to conquer the oilfields of the Caucasus
b that this would cause the fall of the USSR
c that it was possible to transport this oil to Germany
d that with this oil they would defeat Britain and the US
a was out of the question : the Germans never arrived at Baku and Maikop
b was very unlikely :the German oil experts warned for this illusion,saying that it would hurt the Soviets but that there was no proof that it would be decisive .Besides what was more important was not the oil production, but the oil needs :the USSR produced 34 million ton of oil in 1940 and only 19 million in 1945 but still were in Berlin that year
c to transport and refine of the oil would demand at least a generation : it could be done only after the war .
d was also an illusion :more oil does not mean more tanks and more aircraft or more submarines
The Germans produced more oil after the failure of Blau than before Blau .
Hitler said that he needed the oil of the Caucasus or that he had to stop the war . He did not get the oil of the Caucasus but continued the war .
About the oil of Libya: its production was meaningless during the war and oil in Libya was unimportant :this oil needed to be transported to Germany to be refined .Something which was impossible .It is the same for the other ME oil :the oil installations
would be destroyed ,the same for the pipelines and the depots in the harbors .

[KDF33]

if the question is when did they actually LOSE the war, meaning there was no longer any question of a negotiated settlement AND Germany would be forced to surrender, maybe the answer is

Germany lost the war when the opportunity to defeat the USSR was lost, which occurred at some point between July and December 1942 (not 1941!).

[ljadw]

Germany lost the war on September 3 1939 .
Even if it had defeated France and Britain ( which means : no Barbarossa ) ,the Third Reich would have collapsed before 1953 .
And, even if it had defeated the USSR, it would still lose to the coalition of Britain and the US .

[Aida1]

Germany lost the war on September 3 1939 .
Even if it had defeated France and Britain ( which means : no Barbarossa ) ,the Third Reich would have collapsed before 1953 .
And, even if it had defeated the USSR, it would still lose to the coalition of Britain and the US .

Like always, contradicting everything for the heck of it.

[john2]

How about 1933 when Einstein renounced his citizenship? Nobody ever wants to bring up the atomic bomb because it means all the battles Germany fought were useless unless they could build a bomb before the US.