At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
ljadw
Member
Posts: 10148
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 20 Dec 2019 09:07

There was no way that the 70 divisions committed to Typhoon could make it to the Volga ( only if they were at the Volga would the SU be defeated )before the Winter ,even if the opposing Soviet forces were defeated .
The only way the Germans could be at the Volga was if in the first days of Typhoon the SU would collaps, and than it would not be needed to go with 70 divisions to the Volga .
A victorious Typhoon was not depending on military factors, but on a political one : collaps of the SU .As long as the Kremlin continued to function, the SU would continue to fight .Even if Moscow was lost : at a certain moment Stalin had decided to leave Moscow,because the conviction was that it would fall . If Stalin would abandon Moscow and this would not result in the collaps of the SU, what was the benefit of capturing Moscow ?
Thus, the military strength figures for both sides are not decing, they are even not important .
The fall of Moscow would not result in the collaps of the SU, but the collaps of the SU would result in the fall of Moscow .
In 1917 the war in the east was won by two political factors :
1 the fall of the Czar
2 the fall of his successors .
These two factors caused the disintegration of Russia .
In 1941 the war in the east could be only won by the fall of the ruling regime, and the longer the war lasted, the smaller the chance that this would happen ,contrary to what happened in WWI,when the longer the war lasted, the weaker the regime became .

Peter89
Member
Posts: 330
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Peter89 » 20 Dec 2019 19:37

Barbarossa was indeed a political speculation, and a very stupid one actually.

The Soviet regime had a firm grip on power, but German decision makers thought it otherwise. If we take a look at the German plans regarding the SU, it was very unfeasible from both military and economical perspectives. Thus all arguing about oil, logistics and Moscow are just excuses to explain the inevitable defeat.

In order to collapse the Soviet regime, the attackers had to have some political offers for the ethnic and religious minorities as well as for the intelligentsia. The Hunger Plan, the concentration camps and the immediate shooting of Muslim POWs has proven to be a less attractive offer than the soviet one.

It was a miracle how well the Wehrmacht fared and how bad the Soviets did in military operations. This makes me wonder if there was still a slight chance of winning as long as the Wallies didn't join forces with the Soviets? But from that point on, zero.

Hitler gambled well until the fall of France, but then he thought he could risk and accomplish anything. He couldn't.

corbulo
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 17 Oct 2019 16:06
Location: London

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by corbulo » 23 Dec 2019 13:43

Peter89 wrote:
20 Dec 2019 19:37
Barbarossa was indeed a political speculation, and a very stupid one actually.

The Soviet regime had a firm grip on power, but German decision makers thought it otherwise. If we take a look at the German plans regarding the SU, it was very unfeasible from both military and economical perspectives. Thus all arguing about oil, logistics and Moscow are just excuses to explain the inevitable defeat.

In order to collapse the Soviet regime, the attackers had to have some political offers for the ethnic and religious minorities as well as for the intelligentsia. The Hunger Plan, the concentration camps and the immediate shooting of Muslim POWs has proven to be a less attractive offer than the soviet one.

It was a miracle how well the Wehrmacht fared and how bad the Soviets did in military operations. This makes me wonder if there was still a slight chance of winning as long as the Wallies didn't join forces with the Soviets? But from that point on, zero.

Hitler gambled well until the fall of France, but then he thought he could risk and accomplish anything. He couldn't.
Not doubting you. But do you think if Hitler had concentrated on removing GB as a threat, the decision to invade the SU might have worked...? After all, from Britain emerged the strategic bombing threat as well as the eventual starting point for D-Day. I do agree about the ethnic minorities, but in terms of numbers how would that have worked? I've always been intrigued by the strategic reach of Turkey in getting to places that teh Nazis wanted to get to i.e. Middle East, Caucusus and Egypt

Peter89
Member
Posts: 330
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Peter89 » 23 Dec 2019 15:21

corbulo wrote:
23 Dec 2019 13:43
Peter89 wrote:
20 Dec 2019 19:37
Barbarossa was indeed a political speculation, and a very stupid one actually.

The Soviet regime had a firm grip on power, but German decision makers thought it otherwise. If we take a look at the German plans regarding the SU, it was very unfeasible from both military and economical perspectives. Thus all arguing about oil, logistics and Moscow are just excuses to explain the inevitable defeat.

In order to collapse the Soviet regime, the attackers had to have some political offers for the ethnic and religious minorities as well as for the intelligentsia. The Hunger Plan, the concentration camps and the immediate shooting of Muslim POWs has proven to be a less attractive offer than the soviet one.

It was a miracle how well the Wehrmacht fared and how bad the Soviets did in military operations. This makes me wonder if there was still a slight chance of winning as long as the Wallies didn't join forces with the Soviets? But from that point on, zero.

Hitler gambled well until the fall of France, but then he thought he could risk and accomplish anything. He couldn't.
Not doubting you. But do you think if Hitler had concentrated on removing GB as a threat, the decision to invade the SU might have worked...? After all, from Britain emerged the strategic bombing threat as well as the eventual starting point for D-Day. I do agree about the ethnic minorities, but in terms of numbers how would that have worked? I've always been intrigued by the strategic reach of Turkey in getting to places that teh Nazis wanted to get to i.e. Middle East, Caucusus and Egypt
The Germans never had a complex strategy against the SU or the British Empire, they relied on sheer force and the right of the conquerors.

If you want to attack a state that is stronger than you, you must exploit the possible cracks and rifts between its society. Like Hannibaal did against Rome - no wonder Polybius and Livy argued that the second Punic war was - in essence - a contest of the statecraft. First, he rallied the recently subjugated Gauls to his cause (after Trebia), then the Italian allies with some bitter memories against Rome (after lake Trasimene), and finally he was able to won the neutrality or support of the Italian allies with particular interests against Rome (eg. Capua).

The Germans couldn't give any plausible or sensible political offers to the subjugated minorities and downcasted groups of the SU or the BE, because they were not interested in peaceful co-existence. This is especially true for the colour-skinned colonials, the jews and the Slavs. Maybe they could get along with the finnugoric Baltic nations, but just maybe. (According to the Mein Kampf, they are culture-bearers at best.)

The Irish, Scottish and Welsh populations were firmly in favor of the English cause, which is also a sign of the Reich's inept foreign policies.

To answer your direct question, if GB was defeated by Germany, the war was basically over. The alliance with the SU (note that the Reich and the SU were allies) could continue, and the USA would probably chose another course for foreign affairs. (Isolation, probably.) The colonial world might got a new ruler.

corbulo
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 17 Oct 2019 16:06
Location: London

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by corbulo » 23 Dec 2019 15:44

Peter89 wrote:
23 Dec 2019 15:21
corbulo wrote:
23 Dec 2019 13:43
Peter89 wrote:
20 Dec 2019 19:37
Barbarossa was indeed a political speculation, and a very stupid one actually.

The Soviet regime had a firm grip on power, but German decision makers thought it otherwise. If we take a look at the German plans regarding the SU, it was very unfeasible from both military and economical perspectives. Thus all arguing about oil, logistics and Moscow are just excuses to explain the inevitable defeat.

In order to collapse the Soviet regime, the attackers had to have some political offers for the ethnic and religious minorities as well as for the intelligentsia. The Hunger Plan, the concentration camps and the immediate shooting of Muslim POWs has proven to be a less attractive offer than the soviet one.

It was a miracle how well the Wehrmacht fared and how bad the Soviets did in military operations. This makes me wonder if there was still a slight chance of winning as long as the Wallies didn't join forces with the Soviets? But from that point on, zero.

Hitler gambled well until the fall of France, but then he thought he could risk and accomplish anything. He couldn't.
Not doubting you. But do you think if Hitler had concentrated on removing GB as a threat, the decision to invade the SU might have worked...? After all, from Britain emerged the strategic bombing threat as well as the eventual starting point for D-Day. I do agree about the ethnic minorities, but in terms of numbers how would that have worked? I've always been intrigued by the strategic reach of Turkey in getting to places that teh Nazis wanted to get to i.e. Middle East, Caucusus and Egypt
The Germans never had a complex strategy against the SU or the British Empire, they relied on sheer force and the right of the conquerors.

If you want to attack a state that is stronger than you, you must exploit the possible cracks and rifts between its society. Like Hannibaal did against Rome - no wonder Polybius and Livy argued that the second Punic war was - in essence - a contest of the statecraft. First, he rallied the recently subjugated Gauls to his cause (after Trebia), then the Italian allies with some bitter memories against Rome (after lake Trasimene), and finally he was able to won the neutrality or support of the Italian allies with particular interests against Rome (eg. Capua).

The Germans couldn't give any plausible or sensible political offers to the subjugated minorities and downcasted groups of the SU or the BE, because they were not interested in peaceful co-existence. This is especially true for the colour-skinned colonials, the jews and the Slavs. Maybe they could get along with the finnugoric Baltic nations, but just maybe. (According to the Mein Kampf, they are culture-bearers at best.)

The Irish, Scottish and Welsh populations were firmly in favor of the English cause, which is also a sign of the Reich's inept foreign policies.

To answer your direct question, if GB was defeated by Germany, the war was basically over. The alliance with the SU (note that the Reich and the SU were allies) could continue, and the USA would probably chose another course for foreign affairs. (Isolation, probably.) The colonial world might got a new ruler.
Bit different though. Armaments were different for a start. All you needed was a mass of warriors with swords to constitute a fighting force back in BC days. The Nazis did start to extend Waffen-SS eligibity. THe best they could have hoped for was to foment rebellion in Red areas but that seems unlikely considiering disparity in numbers compared to Soviet armies, reprisals etc. Incorporating Ukrainians, Tatars, Caucasians could have worked but then again how disposed were these people to the Nazis? What percentage would have fought for the Nazis? Germany would have still have needed to produce armour/armaments/supplies etc.

For me the real disaster was Kursk. Everything was on a knife edge on the Eastern Front in Spring 1943.

Don't think the war would be over if Germany occupied GB. The invasion of the Soviet Union would still happen for lebensraum reasons etc, if not hubris.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 330
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Peter89 » 23 Dec 2019 16:12

corbulo wrote:
23 Dec 2019 15:44
Peter89 wrote:
23 Dec 2019 15:21
corbulo wrote:
23 Dec 2019 13:43
Peter89 wrote:
20 Dec 2019 19:37
Barbarossa was indeed a political speculation, and a very stupid one actually.

The Soviet regime had a firm grip on power, but German decision makers thought it otherwise. If we take a look at the German plans regarding the SU, it was very unfeasible from both military and economical perspectives. Thus all arguing about oil, logistics and Moscow are just excuses to explain the inevitable defeat.

In order to collapse the Soviet regime, the attackers had to have some political offers for the ethnic and religious minorities as well as for the intelligentsia. The Hunger Plan, the concentration camps and the immediate shooting of Muslim POWs has proven to be a less attractive offer than the soviet one.

It was a miracle how well the Wehrmacht fared and how bad the Soviets did in military operations. This makes me wonder if there was still a slight chance of winning as long as the Wallies didn't join forces with the Soviets? But from that point on, zero.

Hitler gambled well until the fall of France, but then he thought he could risk and accomplish anything. He couldn't.
Not doubting you. But do you think if Hitler had concentrated on removing GB as a threat, the decision to invade the SU might have worked...? After all, from Britain emerged the strategic bombing threat as well as the eventual starting point for D-Day. I do agree about the ethnic minorities, but in terms of numbers how would that have worked? I've always been intrigued by the strategic reach of Turkey in getting to places that teh Nazis wanted to get to i.e. Middle East, Caucusus and Egypt
The Germans never had a complex strategy against the SU or the British Empire, they relied on sheer force and the right of the conquerors.

If you want to attack a state that is stronger than you, you must exploit the possible cracks and rifts between its society. Like Hannibaal did against Rome - no wonder Polybius and Livy argued that the second Punic war was - in essence - a contest of the statecraft. First, he rallied the recently subjugated Gauls to his cause (after Trebia), then the Italian allies with some bitter memories against Rome (after lake Trasimene), and finally he was able to won the neutrality or support of the Italian allies with particular interests against Rome (eg. Capua).

The Germans couldn't give any plausible or sensible political offers to the subjugated minorities and downcasted groups of the SU or the BE, because they were not interested in peaceful co-existence. This is especially true for the colour-skinned colonials, the jews and the Slavs. Maybe they could get along with the finnugoric Baltic nations, but just maybe. (According to the Mein Kampf, they are culture-bearers at best.)

The Irish, Scottish and Welsh populations were firmly in favor of the English cause, which is also a sign of the Reich's inept foreign policies.

To answer your direct question, if GB was defeated by Germany, the war was basically over. The alliance with the SU (note that the Reich and the SU were allies) could continue, and the USA would probably chose another course for foreign affairs. (Isolation, probably.) The colonial world might got a new ruler.
Bit different though. Armaments were different for a start. All you needed was a mass of warriors with swords to constitute a fighting force back in BC days. The Nazis did start to extend Waffen-SS eligibity. THe best they could have hoped for was to foment rebellion in Red areas but that seems unlikely considiering disparity in numbers compared to Soviet armies, reprisals etc. Incorporating Ukrainians, Tatars, Caucasians could have worked but then again how disposed were these people to the Nazis? What percentage would have fought for the Nazis? Germany would have still have needed to produce armour/armaments/supplies etc.

For me the real disaster was Kursk. Everything was on a knife edge on the Eastern Front in Spring 1943.

Don't think the war would be over if Germany occupied GB. The invasion of the Soviet Union would still happen for lebensraum reasons etc, if not hubris.
This is really coming down to the question of grand strategy.

If your arch enemy is the Anglo-Saxon world, you can throw the Mein Kampf and the Nazi bullshit to the dumpster. One white, Germanic, Aryan state attacking another? What a crap. Don't forget that in the Great War, the British King and the German Kaiser were cousines (they were also relatives to most of the European ruling families btw, including the Romanovs).

Are you familiar with the words on the Prince of Wales' feathers? "Ich dien". "I serve" in English.

I just cite this here to show you how stupid a war would be with the Englishmen and how easy the consolidation would be after the successful occupation of Britain. See the battle of the Cable Street. That was a moment to exploit.

Such times were there in the SU as well. Like, in the worst times of the Holodomor, the Reich could give the starving Ukranians a cause to fight for. Etc.

You have to wait for these times. The disintegration of the British Empire was underway. The Germans could have won, but only with a proper grand strategy. So to say, the Germans could have won, but the Nazis couldn't have.

This requires professional and delicate statecraft, which the Reich did not possess.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10148
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 23 Dec 2019 16:21

NO : there were no nazis in WWI,but still Germany lost . It would also have lost in WWII with an other regime .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10148
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 23 Dec 2019 16:32

corbulo wrote:
23 Dec 2019 15:44
Peter89 wrote:
23 Dec 2019 15:21
corbulo wrote:
23 Dec 2019 13:43
Peter89 wrote:
20 Dec 2019 19:37
Barbarossa was indeed a political speculation, and a very stupid one actually.

The Soviet regime had a firm grip on power, but German decision makers thought it otherwise.

For me the real disaster was Kursk. Everything was on a knife edge on the Eastern Front in Spring 1943.

Don't think the war would be over if Germany occupied GB. The invasion of the Soviet Union would still happen for lebensraum reasons etc, if not hubris.
1 Barbarossa was not stupid : it was a desperate attempt to not lose the war .
2 The German decision makers did not think that the Soviet regime had no firm grip on power, neither the opposite : they knew that the only way to defeat the SU was if the regime collapsed,and thus they were saying that it would happen, one way or another .
3 Kursk was no real disaster at all, it was only a small defensive attack ,not worth than more than a few lines in a WWII encyclopedia
4 Absolutely no : The occupation of Britain would prevent Barbarossa,besides if the war was won in the west,there would be no need for lebensraum : the only reason for Barbarossa was the failure to force Britain to give up .

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 960
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Aida1 » 23 Dec 2019 18:11

ljadw wrote:
23 Dec 2019 16:32
corbulo wrote:
23 Dec 2019 15:44
Peter89 wrote:
23 Dec 2019 15:21
corbulo wrote:
23 Dec 2019 13:43
Peter89 wrote:
20 Dec 2019 19:37
Barbarossa was indeed a political speculation, and a very stupid one actually.

The Soviet regime had a firm grip on power, but German decision makers thought it otherwise.

For me the real disaster was Kursk. Everything was on a knife edge on the Eastern Front in Spring 1943.

Don't think the war would be over if Germany occupied GB. The invasion of the Soviet Union would still happen for lebensraum reasons etc, if not hubris.
1 Barbarossa was not stupid : it was a desperate attempt to not lose the war .
2 The German decision makers did not think that the Soviet regime had no firm grip on power, neither the opposite : they knew that the only way to defeat the SU was if the regime collapsed,and thus they were saying that it would happen, one way or another .
3 Kursk was no real disaster at all, it was only a small defensive attack ,not worth than more than a few lines in a WWII encyclopedia
4 Absolutely no : The occupation of Britain would prevent Barbarossa,besides if the war was won in the west,there would be no need for lebensraum : the only reason for Barbarossa was the failure to force Britain to give up .
Kursk was no disaster but still a major offensive campaign despite what you say.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10148
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 23 Dec 2019 20:15

Kursk had only defensive aims ,thus it was a defensive campaign .

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 960
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Aida1 » 23 Dec 2019 20:55

ljadw wrote:
23 Dec 2019 20:15
Kursk had only defensive aims ,thus it was a defensive campaign .
It was an offensive whether you like it or not.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 330
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Peter89 » 23 Dec 2019 21:19

Aida1 wrote:
23 Dec 2019 20:55
ljadw wrote:
23 Dec 2019 20:15
Kursk had only defensive aims ,thus it was a defensive campaign .
It was an offensive whether you like it or not.
It was an offensive of limited goals like operation Whirbelwind.

With no prospect of winning the war. A counterattack actually.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 330
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Peter89 » 23 Dec 2019 21:24

ljadw wrote:
23 Dec 2019 16:21
NO : there were no nazis in WWI,but still Germany lost . It would also have lost in WWII with an other regime .
Yep. But Germany didn't lost on the Eastern Front in WW1, remember? Germany won... thanks to (at least as a final push) Lenin. Ooopsy.

Without Russia / SU, the Western Allies could always beat Germany. But not the other way around.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 938
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 24 Dec 2019 06:27

Peter89 wrote:If you want to attack a state that is stronger than you
Germany had a bigger economy than SU within the Altreich alone. By June 41 it was bigger yet counting occupied areas and satellites. By 1942 the economic balance was at least 2:1. Germany produced, for example, nearly 4x as much steel as SU in 1942 and 43.

Just interjecting to remind everyone that the SU of 1941 was not the superpower of the Cold War era.

The Eastern Front should have produced a German victory regardless of Ukrainian/Baltic attitudes. The explanation for Soviet victory is more strategic than economic/demographic.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 938
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 24 Dec 2019 06:35

Peter89 wrote:It was a miracle how well the Wehrmacht fared and how bad the Soviets did in military operations. This makes me wonder if there was still a slight chance of winning as long as the Wallies didn't join forces with the Soviets? But from that point on, zero
Tactics more than operations. Once Stalin stopped interfering the Soviet generals were a near match for German operationally while light years ahead strategically (a domain in which OKH was a bunch of clowns).
Last edited by TheMarcksPlan on 24 Dec 2019 06:56, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”