At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by KDF33 » 02 Sep 2023 07:26

Aida1 wrote:
02 Sep 2023 07:11
Actually, you would be hard put to work out a masterplan for beating the USSR in 1942 with the weakened German Army.
Incorrect. I have already formulated such a plan:

Image
And it was weakened contrary to your fiction.
It was weakened relative to 1941. But it was still strong enough to defeat the Soviets.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4210
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Aida1 » 02 Sep 2023 07:41

KDF33 wrote:
02 Sep 2023 07:26
Aida1 wrote:
02 Sep 2023 07:11
Actually, you would be hard put to work out a masterplan for beating the USSR in 1942 with the weakened German Army.
Incorrect. I have already formulated such a plan:

Image
And it was weakened contrary to your fiction.
It was weakened relative to 1941. But it was still strong enough to defeat the Soviets.
Does not look like a plan that would defeat the USSR. Not really ambitious enough. The german army of 1942 could not do that anymore anyway. You really are out of your depth. You are not a military genius. You are not Manstein.👎

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15433
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 02 Sep 2023 13:48

KDF33 wrote:
01 Sep 2023 18:02
T. A. Gardner wrote:
01 Sep 2023 17:54
I would say, more like stalemate the Eastern front and possibly eke out some negotiated peace, but outright win? No.
I disagree. The balance of force generation and attrition was so favorable to the Germans by spring 1942 that, barring catastrophic German mistakes, the Soviets were on their way to a comprehensive defeat.

Fortunately, the Germans did make such a mistake.
There was no such thing as a catastrophic German mistake .
The reality is
1 NO ONE could defeat the USSR/Russia in a conventional war .
2 The Germans had already lost in August 1941 .
3 Even if the Germans defeated the Soviets, they could not continue to occupy European Russia
4 Even if the Germans defeated the Soviets, they had already lost WW2 before the invasion of the USSR
5 200 million inhabitants of the SU could not continue to to occupy 100 million inhabitants of the satellites :the Soviets did not dare to intervene in Poland or Romania and were powerless against the secession of Yugoslavia .
Thus,how could 80 million Germans occupy European Russia with 150 million inhabitants ?
6 Attrition was unfavorable to Germany ,as less than 50 % of Germany's manpower and strength could be committed in the East .
From Quist on this forum
German combat losses from June 1941 to April 1942 : 1,1M men
Soviet losses 5,825 M
As less than 50 % of German manpower could be committed in the East,attrition was not benefiting Germany .
German CL from April 1942 til October 1944 : 4 M ,Soviet CL :16,4 .
7 The German occupation of European Russia would not benefit Germany and the Soviet occupation of its satellites was not benefiting the Soviets .
8 Germany would lose against the SU even if B+ F were defeated and if the US remained neutral .
Germany would lose against Britain and France even if the SU remained neutral .
Germany would lose in ALL occasions,the reason being that NO European power was,is,shall be strong enough to dominate Europe .

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by KDF33 » 02 Sep 2023 14:03

ljadw wrote:
02 Sep 2023 13:48
There was no such thing as a catastrophic German mistake .
The reality is
(...)
No, ljadw, you are wrong.

And I don't just mean about this. You are wrong ontologically.

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by KDF33 » 02 Sep 2023 14:07

Aida1 wrote:
02 Sep 2023 07:41
Does not look like a plan that would defeat the USSR. Not really ambitious enough.
The Germans didn't need to be "ambitious" in 1942. They needed to be systematic, and focus on maximizing Soviet force attrition.
The german army of 1942 could not do that anymore anyway.
I have extensively researched the subject. They could.
You really are out of your depth.
No. You think so because of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
You are not a military genius.
I never claimed to be.
You are not Manstein.👎
I'd question whether he was a military genius himself.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4210
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Aida1 » 02 Sep 2023 16:00

KDF33 wrote:
02 Sep 2023 14:07
Aida1 wrote:
02 Sep 2023 07:41
Does not look like a plan that would defeat the USSR. Not really ambitious enough.
The Germans didn't need to be "ambitious" in 1942. They needed to be systematic, and focus on maximizing Soviet force attrition.
The german army of 1942 could not do that anymore anyway.
I have extensively researched the subject. They could.
You really are out of your depth.
No. You think so because of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
You are not a military genius.
I never claimed to be.
You are not Manstein.👎
I'd question whether he was a military genius himself.
You are far out of your depth when you pretend to defeat the USSR with this unambitious very limited offensive in 1942 . Your type of attrition will never defeat the USSR. The red army suffered heavy losses all the time in ww2.
Manstein was a genius; you are clearly not. Just an armchair general. I suppose we will not have to wait for your groundbreaking :lol: book with your theory about how to defeat the USSR in 1942.

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by KDF33 » 02 Sep 2023 18:25

Aida1 wrote:
02 Sep 2023 16:00
You are far out of your depth when you pretend to defeat the USSR with this unambitious very limited offensive in 1942 . Your type of attrition will never defeat the USSR.
How would you know?
The red army suffered heavy losses all the time in ww2.
See? That's what I mean by Dunning-Kruger. You only have general "vibes" about the war, rather than precise data.

But let me humor you: Can you provide me with Soviet military casualties during WW2, broken down by quarter-years?
Manstein was a genius; you are clearly not.
I'm not a big believer in genius.
Just an armchair general.
One of the best.
I suppose we will not have to wait for your groundbreaking :lol: book with your theory about how to defeat the USSR in 1942.
I might get around to write it, eventually.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4210
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Aida1 » 02 Sep 2023 19:28

KDF33 wrote:
02 Sep 2023 18:25
Aida1 wrote:
02 Sep 2023 16:00
You are far out of your depth when you pretend to defeat the USSR with this unambitious very limited offensive in 1942 . Your type of attrition will never defeat the USSR.
How would you know?
The red army suffered heavy losses all the time in ww2.
See? That's what I mean by Dunning-Kruger. You only have general "vibes" about the war, rather than precise data.

But let me humor you: Can you provide me with Soviet military casualties during WW2, broken down by quarter-years?
Manstein was a genius; you are clearly not.
I'm not a big believer in genius.
Just an armchair general.
One of the best.
I suppose we will not have to wait for your groundbreaking :lol: book with your theory about how to defeat the USSR in 1942.
I might get around to write it, eventually.
You have no doubt a very big ego, thinking you know it better than all historians that have ever written about the eastern front. :lol:
And your masterplan does not show you as a good armchair general either. It is un ambitious consisting of some short pincers that will fail because the red army can easily escape from them. This type of plan will fail in inflicting so heavy losses on the red army that not only it cannot set up new units, but cannot even replace the losses in the existing ones. German Fremde Heere Ost underestimated the red army manpower but you are even worse. :roll:
If you played this scenario in a wargame you would lose badly. :lol:
The german army was the one that could not replace its manpower losses and had also suffered serious material losses which affected its mobility. You seriously overrate the offensive abilities of the german army of 1942.

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by KDF33 » 02 Sep 2023 20:03

Aida1 wrote:
02 Sep 2023 19:28
You have no doubt a very big ego
Incorrect. I simply have a realistic appraisal of my own abilities.
thinking you know it better than all historians that have ever written about the eastern front. :lol:
On the specific issue of the German-Soviet balance of military power in mid-1942, yes, I agree.
And your masterplan does not show you as a good armchair general either. It is un ambitious consisting of some short pincers that will fail because the red army can easily escape from them.
No. The Red Army never showed that it could escape destruction under similar circumstances.

In fairness, I'd argue that, in general, unmotorized infantry formations, whether Soviet or German, could seldom escape destruction when faced with an enemy motorized breakthrough.
This type of plan will fail in inflicting so heavy losses on the red army that not only it cannot set up new units, but cannot even replace the losses in the existing ones.
You still haven't provided me quarterly Soviet losses.
German Fremde Heere Ost underestimated the red army manpower but you are even worse. :roll:
I quite precisely know the Soviet manpower situation in 1942.
If you played this scenario in a wargame you would lose badly. :lol:
Incorrect.
The german army was the one that could not replace its manpower losses
It depends on which period we're discussing.
and had also suffered serious material losses which affected its mobility.
The Ostheer didn't need 1941's mobility, merely the level of mobility required to accomplish the given task.
You seriously overrate the offensive abilities of the german army of 1942.
No.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15433
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 02 Sep 2023 20:55

KDF33 wrote:
02 Sep 2023 14:03
ljadw wrote:
02 Sep 2023 13:48
There was no such thing as a catastrophic German mistake .
The reality is
(...)
No, ljadw, you are wrong.

And I don't just mean about this. You are wrong ontologically.
YOU have to prove that the Germans did a mistake and that this mistake decided the outcome of the war .
YOU said that fortunately the Germans made a catastrophic mistake which means that this mistake decided the outcome of the war .
The truth is that the outcome of the war was not decided by mistakes :the Germans could only ''win ''if the Soviet regime collapsed .

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by KDF33 » 02 Sep 2023 21:30

ljadw wrote:
02 Sep 2023 20:55
The truth is that the outcome of the war was not decided by mistakes :the Germans could only ''win ''if the Soviet regime collapsed .
No. The Germans could obviously also win by destroying the USSR's material capabilities to resist.

As I said: you are ontologically wrong.

john2
Member
Posts: 1023
Joined: 03 Feb 2003 23:25
Location: north carolina

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by john2 » 03 Sep 2023 03:41

Reply to KDF33
No. The Germans could obviously also win by destroying the USSR's material capabilities to resist.
As an expert on the matter I'm sure you know the Russians moved a number of factories further to the east out of the reach of the Germans. Here is an article on the subject:
Michael Fassbender

Depth and integration
The Transfer of Soviet Factories During World War II

In many ways geography served to protect the Soviets during the German invasion in 1941. The extremities of the Russian climate are best known, but the huge expanses of territory were another major consideration, and that was exacerbated by a lack of roads. In one respect, however, geography posed a grave challenge for the Soviets: most of the population, and therefore most of the workforce, lived and worked in European Russia, Ukraine and Byelorussia. It was precisely these areas that were most directly threatened by the German invasion. Much of Soviet industry was endangered by the German advance, and so the Soviets undertook a titanic effort to dismantle their factories and transport them to safer sectors in Siberia and the Caucasus.

In the European part of the Soviet Union (everything west of the Urals), heavy industry was concentrated in several key locations. Two of them were the traditional capitals of Moscow and Leningrad, which boasted large populations and the strongest organizational infrastructure. Two other regional centers of industrial production were Ukraine and the Donets Basin in southern Russia, near the Black Sea. The importance of these four areas is also reflected in the principal rail lines. Moscow was the central hub for track that led north, south or east. The two lines that ran north from Moscow led to Leningrad, Murmansk and Archangel’sk, which served as Russia’s northern ports. The southern line ran through Kiev and Rostov-on-Don on the way to the oilfields of Baku. These lines connected all four of the chief industrial zones in the west.

While these areas represented the traditional industrial areas from Tsarist times, the Soviets had expanded their industrial capacity significantly in the 1930’s. Specific information was held in secret for a long time, but the consensus in the outside world held that Soviet industry was growing in the eastern expanses of the country; in fact, the Urals and Soviet Central Asia developed extensive industrial zones, while large pockets of industry sprang up in southern Siberia along the path of the Trans-Siberian Railway. While the loss of the western industrial zones would have been devastating for the Soviet military economy, the temporary disruption of production in the western zones would not cripple the war effort in the long run due to the continuing efforts of these eastern industrial zones.

The dispersion of industry therefore played a defensive role when the German invasion came, but it had not been intended as such. Indeed, in the last years before the invasion, Stalin refused to consider plans for the evacuation of existing factories to safer eastern zones, even as contingency plans in the event of an attack. Such plans suggested that the Soviets might lose in a future conflict, and Stalin intended to win from the start. The key to his plan for success lay in having more tanks, more guns, more planes, more ammunition and more reserves of raw materials than anyone else. This was the intended purpose of the expansion of Soviet industry. Seven large industrial zones could perform far more work than four.

For reasons that remain controversial to this day, Stalin was surprised by the German invasion, and the Germans made impressive progress for the first few months of the operation. Three German Army Groups plunged deeply into the European part of the Soviet Union; one was aimed at Leningrad, one at Moscow, and one at the Ukraine and southern Russia, threatening the four western industrial zones by the end of November. Had the German drive not faltered, the Soviets might easily have lost all four western industrial zones.

If the Soviets had been caught short in the invasion because of unrealistic expectations, they learned quickly enough after it. Indeed, the first two weeks of the fighting were sufficient to demonstrate the magnitude of the threat, and by early July, the Soviet leadership was already making plans for the transfer of important factory resources to secure locations in the east. A governing body, dubbed the Evacuation Soviet, was established to oversee this process on July 3. In the Ukraine it began with the reorganization of military leadership undertaken on July 10. Marshal Semyon M Budenny assumed command of both of the southern Fronts (Red Army formations comparable in nature to Army Groups in the west, but usually smaller in size) in a single organization. Nikita S Khrushchev served as his Commissar, and he was specifically given the task of conducting the transfer of Ukrainian industrial assets.

The transfer was conducted astonishingly quickly. To use one example, the Zaporozhstal’ steel production facilities were emptied between August 19 and September 5. Naturally, the buildings that housed the factories were of no concern. It was the expensive specialized machinery and their related equipment, the capital investment of the factory, that needed protection, and these were hauled to safety along the main rail lines, generally along with the workers trained to do the work of the factory. In the case of Ukrainian and Donets Basin factories, these traveled southeast into the Caucasus, and eventually 226 facilities were evacuated along this line.

The Leningrad and Moscow facilities were evacuated using the rail lines traveling east from Moscow, but although the transfers were extensive, they were not total. Both cities were placed under siege by the end of 1941, and prudence dictated that some important resources be rescued from the threat, but for a variety of reasons, authorities were slower to order the evacuation than they were in the south. As it happened, neither city actually fell to the Germans, and herculean efforts were performed by the Soviets to ensure that this was the case. The siege of Moscow was broken during the winter of 1941-42, while the siege of Leningrad endured for a further two years.

In the case of Leningrad, a balance needed to be found between the facilities that could safely be permitted to go off-line for a time and those that needed to run constantly. In part, this was because of the conditions of the siege itself; the ability of the Soviets to bring in additional supplies and equipment was limited, so the defenders of Leningrad needed to build as much of the material that they needed locally as they could. At the same time, it was not strictly a matter of what Leningrad needed; the Leningrad industrial zone produced vitally important ammunition stocks for the country as a whole, and at the beginning of the siege, when the railway connection was still usable and alternative sites had not yet been erected, Leningrad needed to fulfill its national deliveries. In an effort to maximize the efficiency of the comparatively few rail trips that were possible during the siege, trains would arrive bringing troops and leave carrying deliveries of Leningrad production, dismantled factories and their key workers, and refugees, in that order.

Even so, some 1300 factories were packed up from the northern industrial sectors and carried east by train into the Urals, Central Asia or Siberia. Moreover, these numbers only reflect large facilities. When all factories, even small ones no larger than simple workshops, are considered, as many as 50,000 may have been transported east. As monumental as this effort proved, it still fell short of all available industry. In the Donets Basin, for example, 64 steel facilities came under threat in 1941, but the Soviets only managed to salvage 17 of them. It was not only facilities that were lost; huge stockpiles of raw materials or refined materials were also abandoned, and areas that produced strategic resources were taken by the enemy. The year 1942 saw the production of steel and coal at rates roughly half of what they had been in 1941.

The remaining industry concentrated on immediate needs, however. In 1941, the Soviets built 6274 tanks. In 1942, they built 24,639. Newly transported factories contributed materially to these numbers, as they were reassembled with the same speed at which they had been dismantled. One Ukrainian factory was rebuilt in the Urals and delivered its first shipment of tanks (25 in number) at the beginning of December, some three months after it had been evacuated.

With so much material to be transported, however, not all deliveries were routed properly. In an effort to make the transport system more efficient, the Evacuation Soviet was replaced on December 25, 1941, with a Committee for Freight Dispersal. By this time, the challenge had seemed to shift from the evacuation of existing facilities to the orderly delivery of equipment waiting for long periods on rail cars or trucks. German offensives in 1942 prompted a fresh set of evacuations, however, albeit on a smaller scale. The system was twice more reorganized in the spring of 1942, with the eventual result that the military governed the rail system. Soviet military successes, beginning in 1943 on a large scale, eased the work of dealing with mobile industrial capacity, and by 1944, the recovery of lost territories allowed the transplantation of the remaining material.

In many ways, the transport of Soviet industry in the wake of the German invasion was highly characteristic of the Soviet system as a whole. In theory, it was governed closely by central committees, but in practice it was often carried out in a chaotic manner by local officials making their best guesses about what to do. Seen in the aggregate, massive quantities of material were moved staggering distances at great speed, making the effort an impressive achievement. While some factories were reassembled and able to resume work within a few weeks, however, others sat unattended on rail cars for months while rail officials struggled to deal with the enormous quantities of material under their care. The effort was often primitive and messy, but it proved effective in the end: the quantities produced by Soviet industry were one of the leading reasons for eventual victory in the war, and those quantities would not have been possible if not for the transfer of thousands of factories threatened by the German advance.



Sources:

Clark, Alan. Barbarossa: The Russian-German Conflict, 1941-45. Harper Collins, 1985

Dear, I.C.B. The Oxford Guide to World War II. Oxford, 1995

Overy, Richard. Russia’s War: A History of the Soviet War Effort: 1941-1945. Penguin, 1998

Porter, David. Order of Battle: The Red Army in World War II. Amber, 2009

Seaton, Albert. The Russo-German War, 1941-45. Random House, 1993



© 2014. All rights reserved.
How could the Germans destroy Russia's industrial capacity when they couldn't get to it? But not only do you know better then all the historians but you know better then the German generals who were there fighting the war. If only you had been one of Hitler's generals! I'm sure they would have been waltzing into Washington.

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by KDF33 » 03 Sep 2023 05:21

john2 wrote:
03 Sep 2023 03:41
Reply to KDF33
No. The Germans could obviously also win by destroying the USSR's material capabilities to resist.
As an expert on the matter I'm sure you know the Russians moved a number of factories further to the east out of the reach of the Germans. Here is an article on the subject:

(...)

How could the Germans destroy Russia's industrial capacity when they couldn't get to it?
You misunderstand me: By "material capabilities", I primarily mean the Red Army, not Soviet industry. Although destroying the former would, in time, lead to eliminating the latter.
But not only do you know better then all the historians but you know better then the German generals who were there fighting the war.
Correct, on both counts.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4210
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Aida1 » 03 Sep 2023 08:11

KDF33 wrote:
02 Sep 2023 20:03
Aida1 wrote:
02 Sep 2023 19:28
You have no doubt a very big ego
Incorrect. I simply have a realistic appraisal of my own abilities.
thinking you know it better than all historians that have ever written about the eastern front. :lol:
On the specific issue of the German-Soviet balance of military power in mid-1942, yes, I agree.
And your masterplan does not show you as a good armchair general either. It is un ambitious consisting of some short pincers that will fail because the red army can easily escape from them.
No. The Red Army never showed that it could escape destruction under similar circumstances.

In fairness, I'd argue that, in general, unmotorized infantry formations, whether Soviet or German, could seldom escape destruction when faced with an enemy motorized breakthrough.
This type of plan will fail in inflicting so heavy losses on the red army that not only it cannot set up new units, but cannot even replace the losses in the existing ones.
You still haven't provided me quarterly Soviet losses.
German Fremde Heere Ost underestimated the red army manpower but you are even worse. :roll:
I quite precisely know the Soviet manpower situation in 1942.
If you played this scenario in a wargame you would lose badly. :lol:
Incorrect.
The german army was the one that could not replace its manpower losses
It depends on which period we're discussing.
and had also suffered serious material losses which affected its mobility.
The Ostheer didn't need 1941's mobility, merely the level of mobility required to accomplish the given task.
You seriously overrate the offensive abilities of the german army of 1942.
No.
Only again showcases your gigantic ego based on nothing at all. You want to inflict a so devastating defeat on the red army that it actually loses the war :lol: with a very limited un ambitious operation that will do far less than in 1941 because of the german army being far reduced in mobility and the red army not letting itself be encircled anymore and there will be red army offensives elsewhere Even Hitler had more sense than this un ambitious plan which essentially tries to shorten the lines in an offensive way.
You are a very bad armchair general. You will fail in your lofty objective and and history will not change..

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4210
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Aida1 » 03 Sep 2023 08:13

KDF33 wrote:
02 Sep 2023 21:30
ljadw wrote:
02 Sep 2023 20:55
The truth is that the outcome of the war was not decided by mistakes :the Germans could only ''win ''if the Soviet regime collapsed .
No. The Germans could obviously also win by destroying the USSR's material capabilities to resist.
Which they will not achieve by your plan without ambition. :lol:

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”