At what point did Germany lose WW2?

[Robert Rojas]

Greetings to both brother dzadick and the community as a whole. Howdy dzadick! Well sir, in respect to your posting of Tuesday - February 26, 2019 - 4:43pm, there are many competing schools of thought within the neighborhood-at-large that contend that a more "enlightened" policy OR policies towards the disparate ethnic groups of the Soviet State "MIGHT" have generated strategic dividends certainly advantageous to the aims of the Axis Alliance. The all knowing Bohemian Corporal had other colorful ideas and the rest, as some would say. is history. Well, that's my latest two cents, pfennigs or kopecks worth on this continuing saga into the Götterdämmerung - for now anyway. Incidentally, welcome to our merry little asylum! In any case, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day down in the "City of Angels".


Best Regards,
Uncle Bob

[peterpies]

Dunkirk.

The Germans stood back allowing the British army to escape back to the UK. With the British army captured the political will in the UK to carry on fighting would have evaporated and the UK would have went for peace.

With the UK out of the war. Lend Lease would not have happened, Russia would have been weakened and faced the full force of the Germans and been beaten.

[ljadw]

Dunkirk.

The Germans stood back allowing the British army to escape back to the UK. With the British army captured the political will in the UK to carry on fighting would have evaporated and the UK would have went for peace.

With the UK out of the war. Lend Lease would not have happened, Russia would have been weakened and faced the full force of the Germans and been beaten.

1 The Germans did not allow the BEF to escape : see Hitler's order to the LW to prevent an escape
2 There is no proof that the loss of half of the BEF at Dunkirk would have resulted in a British capitulation: Britain did not give up after the fall of Singapore
3 There is no proof that the capitulation of Britain would mean no LL to the SU
4 The capitulation and the occupation of Britain would weaken ...Germany : the occupation would demand more than 25 divisions ,where would the Germans find them ? There would be only one source =the Ostheer ,and and Ostheer of 125 divisions would be weaker than an Ostheer of 150 divisions .
5 There could, could ,be only one positive result of the British capitulation for Germany = the election of an isolationist as potus ,but there is no proof that this would happen, and if FDR was reelected, the future was dire, very dire for the Third Reich ;even if it defeated the SU and the US became isolationist, Germany could never have the force to continue to occupy its conquests . Germany was doomed, even if it won the war .

[peterpies]

1 They didn't do a very good job of implementing Hitler's order. Hence my belief it was deliberate.

2 Who said half? The loss of the BEF would have tested even Churchill's resolve, it's my opinion that Churchill would have given up. Singapore is a bad comparison, the US had joined the war at that point.

3 Churchill was instrumental in LL happening. Sure LL might still have happened though, but how much would have got through with the Royal Navy at best being neutral.

4 Capitulation did not mean occupation would have had to happen.

[ljadw]

1 It was not deliberate : the Germans failed because the Allies ( more French than British ! ) were too strong .
2 If Singapore is a bad comparison : what about the loss of Crete ?

3 I said : LL to the SU : most of the transport was done not by the RN but by the USN .And Churchill was not instrumental in LL to the SU .He was also not instrumental in LL to Britain .
4 Oh yes: there could be no capitulation without occupation : all countries who capitulated were completely/partially occupied . Besides : if there was no German occupation army in Britain,who would stop a landing by a British De Gaulle ? Or a landing by the Americans ?

[peterpies]

1 The Germans stood back for 48 hours, orders directly from Hitler, this gave the Allies time to dig in.

2 The decision to fight on had been taken at that point

3 Yes, he was. The Royal Navy provided safe passage at certain points.

4 Yes, you can.

[ljadw]

1 The Germans stood back for 48 hours, orders directly from Hitler, this gave the Allies time to dig in.

2 The decision to fight on had been taken at that point

3 Yes, he was. The Royal Navy provided safe passage at certain points.

4 Yes, you can.

1 There is no proof for a causal relation between the Halt Order and the evacuation : the Halt Order was given because the Allies had digged in . Not the opposite .
2 The loss of half of the BEF would not make Britain helpless against the Germans ,which was the reason why Britain continued to fight
3 That makes Churchill not instrumental
4 Proofs of countries that capitulated in WWII and that were not occupied ?

[Nautilus]

2 The loss of half of the BEF would not make Britain helpless against the Germans ,which was the reason why Britain continued to fight

Not even the saving of the BEF survivors made Britain any stronger: they had to abandon most heavy equipment and artillery. Nearly 340000 men sailed off with clothes on their backs and sometimes their rifles.

The loss of half the BEF would be, however, a blow for the British population, if not political class. A proof the Germans curb-stomped them so easily any more resistance would bring no benefits. Traditional European warfare ended when someone's army had been beaten so harshly it had to leave the battlefield in tatters. Fight to the death was not a necessity, and in this case the ordinary Britons from the poor classes were asked to fight to the death in a war declared for Poland, they could barely find her on the map.

If there was no evacuation at all, Hitler could offer the British Government very favorable terms for an armistice and promise some fantasy reward if they negotiate a peace treaty. Of course, as they aimed to get rid of him personally and the National Socialist regime ever since 1936, the political leaders were not supposed to take the bait, if not for public pressure.

Two things ensured the support of the public for the war: first, restoration of the hope after the evacuation - as long as they were living, healthy and safely behind the Royal Navy barrier, they had not to fear the Germans. Second, the Blitz, which was a gigantic political blunder - it turned a population which might have been reluctant into a furious war frenzy, ready to get their revenge.

[Kelvin]

Once German Invasion of Britain was denied, the war Situation for the allies was not so bad anyway. Ableit German Forces was not defeated in this Moment ( from fall of France to Invasion of USSR), but Axis Partner Italy had suffered a series of setback which somewhat dealt a blow to Axis bloc anyway. Like below

Failure to invade British Isles during July-Sept 1940.

Invasion of Greece foundered in Oct 1940 as Italy with 45 Million Population power cannot defeat a 7 Million Population smaller power.

Then, British Aerial attack at Italian naval base at Taranto, clipping the half of her battleship fleet in Nov 1940.

And in Dec 1940, Operation Compass started by British Western Desert Force which led to capture of 130,000 Italian POW and conquest of most of Libya.

in March 1941, Battle of Cape Matapan : sea battle between Italian and the Royal Navy and result was defeat of the Italian Royal Navy with loss of three heavy Cruisers and seveal destroyers.

In May 1941, British African troop invaded Ethiopia and led to collapse of Italian East African empire.

In May 1941, pro-Nazi Regime was overthrown by British 10th Indian division.

In early June 1941, Australian 7th infantry division began Operation Exporter to captured Vichy French Possession in Syria and Lebanon.

Gabon was captured by Free French in Nov 1940 and many colonies like New Caledonia, Tahiti, French Congo, French Chad and Ubangi Shari all joined Free French.

It seemed the sense of defeat among the allies after the collapse of France had been relieved Prior to Invasion of USSR.

Hitler wanted to readdress the Situation, the quick Victory in USSR was only solution, but when it failed, it destroyed his empire in 1945. just like Napoloen Invasion of Russia in 1812. Before 1812, Stalemale in Spain and discontent in European continent caused by Continental System made Napoleon the defeat of Russia was solution.

[HistPolity]

I'd say the Third Reich lost the war with the near-simultaneous defeats at Normandy combined with the destruction of Army Group Centre in the East. Both opened up the path for the Western Allies and the Soviets to advance to the borders of Germany its self.

Any action from that point on by the Germans was just a delaying action.

[jesk]

I'd say the Third Reich lost the war with the near-simultaneous defeats at Normandy combined with the destruction of Army Group Centre in the East. Both opened up the path for the Western Allies and the Soviets to advance to the borders of Germany its self.

Any action from that point on by the Germans was just a delaying action.

This is a classic misunderstanding of military theory. At least such simple as at Clausewitz. By the beginning of 1945; 45 Wehrmacht divisions were stationed in Latvia, Norway and Finland. Hitler banned the evacuation to Germany. The participation of these divisions in the battles on the Vistula and in East Prussia condensed the German front and allowed them to destroy the advancing Russians.

[jesk]

9th Army on the Vistula, and 16th in Latvia. Germans could more.

Order of battle (31 Dec 1944)

LVI. Panzerkorps
- 214. Infanterie-Division
- 17. Infanterie-Division
VIII. Armeekorps
- 45. Volks-Grenadier-Division
- 6. Volks-Grenadier-Division
- 251. Infanterie-Division
XXXXVI. Panzerkorps
- 337. Volks-Grenadier-Division
- Festungskommandant Warschau
- Sperr-Brigade 1
- 73. Infanterie-Division

Order of battle (31 Dec 1944)

At the disposal of the 16. Armee
- Stab 207. Sicherungs-Division z.b.V.
- Stab 201. Sicherungs-Division
XXXVIII. Armeekorps
- 329. Infanterie-Division + 201. Sicherungs-Division (part)
- 205. Infanterie-Division
- 215. Infanterie-Division + 227. Infanterie-Division (part)
L. Armeekorps
- 122. Infanterie-Division
- 389. Infanterie-Division
- 290. Infanterie-Division
- 24. Infanterie-Division
VI. Waffen-Armeekorps der SS (lettisches)
- 93. Infanterie-Division
- 19. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (lettische Nr. 2)
- 12. Feld-Division (L)
- 4. Panzer-Division
- 12. Panzer-Division
- 227. Infanterie-Division (most)
XVI. Armeekorps
- Gruppe Generalleutnant Henze: Stab 21. Feld-Division (L) + 201. Sicherungs-Division (part)
- 281. Infanterie-Division
- 81. Infanterie-Division

[HistPolity]

I'd say the Third Reich lost the war with the near-simultaneous defeats at Normandy combined with the destruction of Army Group Centre in the East. Both opened up the path for the Western Allies and the Soviets to advance to the borders of Germany its self.

Any action from that point on by the Germans was just a delaying action.

This is a classic misunderstanding of military theory. At least such simple as at Clausewitz. By the beginning of 1945; 45 Wehrmacht divisions were stationed in Latvia, Norway and Finland. Hitler banned the evacuation to Germany. The participation of these divisions in the battles on the Vistula and in East Prussia condensed the German front and allowed them to destroy the advancing Russians.

How so?

It's clear that after June 1944 Allied forces advanced rapidly on both fronts.

[ljadw]

To give up Norway (Finland was already abandoned ) would free a lot of Soviet/allied divisions and would result in an invasion of Schleswig-Holstein by the Allies or the Soviets .

[jesk]

I'd say the Third Reich lost the war with the near-simultaneous defeats at Normandy combined with the destruction of Army Group Centre in the East. Both opened up the path for the Western Allies and the Soviets to advance to the borders of Germany its self.

Any action from that point on by the Germans was just a delaying action.

This is a classic misunderstanding of military theory. At least such simple as at Clausewitz. By the beginning of 1945; 45 Wehrmacht divisions were stationed in Latvia, Norway and Finland. Hitler banned the evacuation to Germany. The participation of these divisions in the battles on the Vistula and in East Prussia condensed the German front and allowed them to destroy the advancing Russians.

How so?

It's clear that after June 1944 Allied forces advanced rapidly on both fronts.

I myself do not fully understand the theory. But from the point of view of the generals, the reduction of the front released forces to other sectors. For example, on October 3, 1943, Hitler rejected.
Norway, Italy, Yugoslavia, Kurland, Hungary should be left in 1945 without a fight.

Can you understand what Manstein was talking about? Not? Learn the theory.

Lost victories. page 298



https://archive.org/details/ErichVonMan ... tVictories