At what point did Germany lose WW2?

[firefox0085]

BDV: "Germans would only have had to rehash their experience of 1870-1871 to remember that sometimes 'flagplanting' won't do and a long fight unto complete occupation of the enemy territory is needed."

Is it possible that Plan Otto, a daring tanks and armoured units spear to pierce direct for Moscow only... (would have worked?) No encircling USSR Armies, no worry about flanks, just go for it. Re-supplied by hundreds of Ju-52's with bladder internal plus external gas tanks. The ones that got shot down over Crete. Oh well...

Barbarossa was as far from blitzkrieg as the German Army went...A crazy, impossible plan given the Germans' relative paucity of crucial resources. A short, sharp blow was all the Wehrmacht could possibly deliver. Anything else and their fatal weaknesses began to show...

[BDV]

Smash and grab Moscow would have been impossible IMO. See Manstein's debacle at Soltsy and the Anabasis to Velikiye Luki (and back), performed by the 19th Panzer. Also see the brutal efficiency of Zhukov against overextended enemies (Khalkin Gol; December 1941).

Even worse, if you trade Moscow and surroundings for Leningrad, Kiev, and eastern Ukraine, I suspect that the Soviets actually come ahead.

[firefox0085]

BVD: "(Khalkin Gol; December 1941)."

Wiki.: (Khalkin Gol)"...At 05:45 on 20 August 1939..."

http://tinyurl.com/jfyu8ry

One can't really compare the Japanese Army to the Wehrmacht. The Germans were far ahead in tank tactics, and similar armoured battlefield movement...to say nothing about their development of the Blitzkrieg concept.

[BDV]

This is not about superior tactics; is about superior force. Zhukov (or Vatutin, or other Soviet generals) had no problem patiently collecting such and then using it against the enemy, whoever that may be. The image of soviet officers and forces as bumbling fools is a (typical) fabrication of the people who gave us Baron Munchausen (i.e., german military aristocracy).

Axis won in the early phases of the Barbarossa through superior force, buoyed by better skill and tactics, but also with obvious blunders at Army Group Level, which cut the level of success. And, in addition to successful fortress defense in multiple spots, when Axis forces were overextended Soviets were able to inflict punishing counterblows.

[firefox0085]

BVD: "Axis won in the early phases of the Barbarossa through superior force."

They had a fraction of the USSR's totals of aircraft, tanks, troops. The Germans had around 3,000 tanks, the Soviets far more. It seems you just cannot bring yourself to admit the USSR had a bad military, out-moded. The Germans won (at first) NOT because they out-numbered the USSR, but because they used what they had far, far more intelligently than Stavka.

[ljadw]

This is not correct : a lot of the Soviet tanks were stationed far way from the border with Germany,and most were simply not operational .

The Germans and their allies had also a superiority in manpower .And it is not so that they used what they had,more intelligently than the Stavka .

[BDV]

They had a fraction of the USSR's totals of aircraft, tanks, troops. The Germans had around 3,000 tanks, the Soviets far more. It seems you just cannot bring yourself to admit the USSR had a bad military, out-moded. The Germans won (at first) NOT because they out-numbered the USSR, but because they used what they had far, far more intelligently than Stavka.

Number were posted to the forum to show that, yes, during the first 3 weeks of war, the Axis did outnumber the RKKA at the frontline. Also in terms of operational tanks, and modern airplanes there was a clear advantage to Axis (which would last until 1943 IIRC), which was frivolously frittered away starting July 10 when motorized formations start acting away and independently from the infantry armies. Hence, in July the Axis ends with the Velikyie Luki Anabasis, the Soltsy Debacle, and the bleeding sausage of Smolensk (kessel would be a misnomer).

[markh]

I suppose the "day" Hitler developed his racist beliefs. Otherwise he could have gained massive support from the "Soviet" population if promising them the liberation of Stalin's terror and independence to the non-Russion nations.

Another guess: 7/12/41.

So very true.

[randwick]

.
On the 15th of November 1941 , Army group center resumed operation Typhoon , the taking of Moscow
that was a big mistake , though not an obvious one
the soldiers were on a good defensive line and could have withstood the Soviet counteroffensive much better .
leaving Moscow for 1942 with refreshed forces

[Peter89]

BVD: "Axis won in the early phases of the Barbarossa through superior force."

They had a fraction of the USSR's totals of aircraft, tanks, troops. The Germans had around 3,000 tanks, the Soviets far more. It seems you just cannot bring yourself to admit the USSR had a bad military, out-moded. The Germans won (at first) NOT because they out-numbered the USSR, but because they used what they had far, far more intelligently than Stavka.

It wasn't about the mental capacity of Stavka or OKW; the OKW had more time to prepare and when they started the offensive, they've been thinking about it for months, while the Stavka and the Red Army officier corps had literally hours to react with no compact defensive plans whatsoever.

So RA traded territories and armies for time, and some months later they delivered crushing blows to the Wehrmacht. The same generals, basically.

By the time the Stavka had enough time to build up offensives of their own, their performance matched the Germans'.

[BDV]

The Germans won (at first) NOT because they out-numbered the USSR, but because they used what they had far, far more intelligently than Stavka.

1. It was not the "Germans" it was "the Axis"

2. If there would "far, far more" (that's TWO "fars") military acumen, there would have been either capture of stated objectives (Leningrad, Moskau) OR less Axis casualties (200k+ / month) until the Sovjet December counterattacks. At the minimal minimum acceptable for a "far far more" characterization.

[Plain Old Dave]

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

I like answering initial posts..Once the Ardennes Offensive failed, a coup and surrender was in order. It should have been self evident at that point that a separate peace with the Western Allies was completely impossible.

[jesk]

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

I like answering initial posts..Once the Ardennes Offensive failed, a coup and surrender was in order. It should have been self evident at that point that a separate peace with the Western Allies was completely impossible.

It is obvious. In the war first of all estimate strength of the opponent. For separate peace Germany had to show something in the battlefield. Germans haven't shown anything. Therefore to talk to them there was no sense.

[randwick]

.
It's obvious now for everybody
It wasn't for the plotters who time and again wanted an armistice in the West and continue the war in the East .

that was an absurd reading of the situation ,
It raise the question of the plotter basic intelligence

[jesk]

.
It's obvious now for everybody
It wasn't for the plotters who time and again wanted an armistice in the West and continue the war in the East .

that was an absurd reading of the situation ,
It raise the question of the plotter basic intelligence

Clausewitz noted in his work that mistakes in strategy are extremely rare as a cause of defeat. Strategy is the state’s distribution of an army in space and time. Hitler made such mistakes a lot. He did not understand that a million German soldiers in Courland and Norway at the beginning of 1945 made it easier for the Soviet armies advance to Berlin.
The German soldiers in Norway and Courland, instead of Germany, it as the adult will answer question 2+2 = 5. Hitler mistakes in strategy are so extraordinary. I always called it sabotage. Germany will lose - will unite Europe. Hitler deceived, association of Europe and the USA in the unions was his true purposes.