At what point did Germany lose WW2?

[ljadw]

You said in post 262 :that Barbarossa failed did not doom Germany to lose the war .
Translation , in other words : Germany could win against the Wallies even if it failed to defeat the Soviets .

No.

What it means is that Germany could still defeat the USSR after the failure of Barbarossa.

The point of discussion is not if Germany could defeat the Soviets, but :At what point did Germany lose WW2 ?

[KDF33]

The point of discussion is not if Germany could defeat the Soviets, but :At what point did Germany lose WW2 ?

Thus, my answer: At the end of 1942, when defeating the USSR was no longer feasible for Germany.

[ljadw]

I disagree : the defeat of the USSR would not make Germany winning WW2 .
There is no causal relation between the German failure in the East and German defeat in WW2 .
Reality is that Germany had already lost WW2 before June 22 1941 and that no war in the East or German victory in the East would change nothing on the outcome of WW2 .
Even if the Ostheer was at the Volga, the fate of Berlin would remain the same : it would be nuked .

[AriX]

There is no causal relation between the German failure in the East and German defeat in WW2 .

Troll statement of the year.

[ljadw]

Reality is
A If Germany won against the Soviets, it would lose against the Wallies
B If Germany won against the Wallies,it would lose against the Soviets
C If Germany won against the Soviets and the Wallies remained neutral, the Third Reich would not last 20 years
D If Germany won against the Wallies and the Soviets remained neutral, the Third Reich would not last 20 years .
E If Germany won against the Soviets and against the Wallies,the Third Reich would not last even 15 years .

[gebhk]

An interesting argument is the GDP argument. GDP is a reasonably reliable indicator of who will come out victorious in a total war, especially so if it becomes a war of attrition. Up until the invasion of the USSR the Axis had a narrow advantage. With the invasion of the USSR the balance began to tip the other way and the rather unnecessary declaration of war against the USA put the kybosh on any chances of winning.

[AbollonPolweder]

Reality is
A If Germany won against the Soviets, it would lose against the Wallies
B If Germany won against the Wallies,it would lose against the Soviets
C If Germany won against the Soviets and the Wallies remained neutral, the Third Reich would not last 20 years
D If Germany won against the Wallies and the Soviets remained neutral, the Third Reich would not last 20 years .
E If Germany won against the Soviets and against the Wallies,the Third Reich would not last even 15 years .

A Could be
B No
C, D, E - could be, if you prove that you are Nostradamus

[ljadw]

A : YES , as victory against the USSR would cost Germany big losses and as the occupation of European Russia would tie enormous German forces who would not be available against the West .Besides : US would nuke Berlin and game would be over
B : YES ,as victory against the Wallies would cost Germany big losses and as the additional occupation of UK would tie German forces who would be needed in the East .
C :YES ,as Germany had not the means to occupy,exploit and colonize European Russia :this occupation, exploitation and colonization would ruin the German economy and the Third Reich would collaps before 1953 .
15 years after the war,the USSR (200 million people ) had lost its grip on its satellite states with 100 million inhabitants .
For Germany ( 80 million people ) this would not last 15 years : it could never pacify European Russia ( 140 million people ),besides : it had to mobilise hundreds of thousands of men to defend its Western borders
D : YES : for the same reasons : Germany was too weak to occupy, exploit and pacify the inhabitants of Denmark, Norway, France, Belgium,the Netherlands and the UK and Ireland ( 120 million people ) during generations and at the same time defend its Eastern borders .
E : YES : Germany was too weak to occupy the 140 million inhabitants of European Russia, the 120 million of the countries in D and the 30 million Poles and Czechs .

[Reich-Interested]

Probably with the operation Barbarossa. The beginning of the end.

Vastly overstretched. Poor connection and supply line issues ECT.

[gebhk]

Probably with the operation Barbarossa. The beginning of the end.

I believe you are quite right. At the most basic, Barbarossa tipped the economic advantage in favour of the (new) Allies, probably for the first time during the war. The DoW against USA, sealed the deal.

[Sheldrake]

Evening all,
Any opions out there about at what point Germany lost ww2.
I'm undecided myslelf but would put it down between Stalingrad,kursk and bagration.
Regards hienz

3rd September 1939. That was the moment that Hitler's Bluff had been called. Hitler's associates had serious misgivings.

Colonel von Vormann’s contemporary account that day deserves quoting here:
"Now the worst has happened, after all! . . . I’m not a belly-acher or defeatist, but the future looks very grim to me. This is just what we didn’t
want. Until this morning the idea was to play for time somehow and to postpone the decision. Even today the Führer still believes that the western powers are only going to stage a phoney war, so to speak. That’s why I’ve had to transmit an order to the Army at : p.m. not to commence
hostilities [in the west] ourselves. I can’t share his belief. He’s got the wrong idea of the British and French psyche."

Raeder penned a sour survey that day, beginning: ‘Today there began a war with Britain and France with which – to judge from all the Führer’s utterances hitherto – we should not have had to reckon before about 1944 ...’ Goebbels too was beset by misgivings, warning Hitler in a twenty-five page memorandum entitled ‘Thoughts on the Outbreak of War, 1939’ that there was little enthusiasm for this new conflict and that Britain, poisoned by ‘Jewish capital,’ would fight to the last man: ‘Britain,’ he pointed out, ‘is governed by the old men of  who are incapable of thinking straight or logically because of their hate complexes.’

David Irving, Hitler's War

[ljadw]

Probably with the operation Barbarossa. The beginning of the end.

I believe you are quite right. At the most basic, Barbarossa tipped the economic advantage in favour of the (new) Allies, probably for the first time during the war. The DoW against USA, sealed the deal.

NO : without Barbarossa Germany would still have lost .
The DOW against the US did not seal the deal :war with the US was certain at the end of June 1940,and no DOW would not change the situation .

[Reich-Interested]

Probably with the operation Barbarossa. The beginning of the end.

I believe you are quite right. At the most basic, Barbarossa tipped the economic advantage in favour of the (new) Allies, probably for the first time during the war. The DoW against USA, sealed the deal.

NO : without Barbarossa Germany would still have lost .
The DOW against the US did not seal the deal :war with the US was certain at the end of June 1940,and no DOW would not change the situation .

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on said question,

There's no doubting the man power, equipment and supplies would have been freed up for other fronts.

Britain hadn't been taken out the war at the time of Barbarossa.

Plus with action in Africa. It was a massive gamble (at that moment) to take on Russia.

[LineDoggie]

Very simple as soon as Hitler turned his back on the UK, leaving it a viable armed enemy to his rear he screwed any victory plans. An Unsinkable carrier for aircraft, barracks for troops.

Add to that once he insanely got into war with the USA he took on the Worlds largest manufacturing concern that could easily outproduce any other nation

[ljadw]

Probably with the operation Barbarossa. The beginning of the end.

I believe you are quite right. At the most basic, Barbarossa tipped the economic advantage in favour of the (new) Allies, probably for the first time during the war. The DoW against USA, sealed the deal.

NO : without Barbarossa Germany would still have lost .
The DOW against the US did not seal the deal :war with the US was certain at the end of June 1940,and no DOW would not change the situation .

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on said question,

There's no doubting the man power, equipment and supplies would have been freed up for other fronts.

Britain hadn't been taken out the war at the time of Barbarossa.

Plus with action in Africa. It was a massive gamble (at that moment) to take on Russia.

Not only had Britain not been taken out the war at 22 June 1941, but Germany had failed
the LW had failed in the Battle of Britain
the KM had failed in the Battle of the Atlantic
the Heer had failed in NA :at 22 June 1941 Rommel had still not captured Tobruk which is a city in Libya, not in Egypt . In the Summer of 1941 the US Atlantic Fleet escorted the LL convoys to Britain and cooperated with the RN in the chase on the UBoats .And everyday war with the US was nearing a day .
The USSR on the other side was no immediate danger for Germany .
The Democratic and GOP conventions OTOH had elected 2 left wing,anti German and interventionist candidates : FDR and Willkie .
Hitler failed against Britain, he could do nothing against Britain, his only choice was to eliminate the USSR hoping that this would postpone the war with the US and that Britain would surrender .This hope was only an illusion,but the alternative was capitulation .
Hitler had failed against Britain without Barbarossa, thus it is not true that no Barbarossa would have fortified his position against Britain .