At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 941
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 24 Dec 2019 06:45

Peter89 wrote:Barbarossa was indeed a political speculation, and a very stupid one actually.
Obviously true but your next move - and the orthodox hisorian's move - is to conclude Barbarossa was doomed for economic/demographic reasons rather than considering its prospects absent the political speculation of quick regime collapse.

Why not instead consider what a German attack looks like if founded on the belief that the Soviet regime will hold for at least a couple years?

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

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 24 Dec 2019 08:30

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
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.
Steel production does not increase the number of divisions .

mezsat2
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: 05 Jun 2009 12:02

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by mezsat2 » 24 Dec 2019 09:06

I'm smashing my head against a brick wall here, but Hitler's primary objective should have been to keep the United States out of the war. It wouldn't have required much effort on his part.

Germany needed oil more than anything. As I've stated many times, there was (and is) billions of barrels of oil reserves in Lybia. No conquest of the Caucasus neded.

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

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 24 Dec 2019 13:07

mezsat2 wrote:
24 Dec 2019 09:06
I'm smashing my head against a brick wall here, but Hitler's primary objective should have been to keep the United States out of the war. It wouldn't have required much effort on his part.

Germany needed oil more than anything. As I've stated many times, there was (and is) billions of barrels of oil reserves in Lybia. No conquest of the Caucasus neded.
1 There is no proof that Germany could do better with more oil
2 No one knew that there were billions of barrels of oil reserves in Libya
3 Even if it was known,it was irrelevant as there was no possibility to start the exploitation of this oil in 1940
4 Even if the exploitation was possible, how would the oil arrive in Germany ? Italy had already lost most of its oil tankers in June 1940
5 War with the US was inevitable in August 1940, when after the GOP convention,the fight would be between two interventionists who were hostiule to Germany : FDR against Willkie . If Willkie won in 1940, LL would still happen .

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

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 24 Dec 2019 14:08

Peter89 wrote:
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.
Not thanks to Lenin : Before Lenin,there was Kerensky .

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

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by corbulo » 24 Dec 2019 15:47

ljadw wrote:
23 Dec 2019 20:15
Kursk had only defensive aims ,thus it was a defensive campaign .
Which was unnecessary. They could have stabilised the front and waited and rearmed. Guderian was right. No offensive actions that Summer or even 1943. The Red Army was always inferior to the Wehrmacht so any Soviet offensives would have been back slapped...

Peter89
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Peter89 » 24 Dec 2019 17:16

corbulo wrote:
24 Dec 2019 15:47
ljadw wrote:
23 Dec 2019 20:15
Kursk had only defensive aims ,thus it was a defensive campaign .
Which was unnecessary. They could have stabilised the front and waited and rearmed. Guderian was right. No offensive actions that Summer or even 1943. The Red Army was always inferior to the Wehrmacht so any Soviet offensives would have been back slapped...
Why do we even discuss this "Soviet inferiority" in 2019?

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

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 24 Dec 2019 19:36

corbulo wrote:
24 Dec 2019 15:47
ljadw wrote:
23 Dec 2019 20:15
Kursk had only defensive aims ,thus it was a defensive campaign .
Which was unnecessary. They could have stabilised the front and waited and rearmed. Guderian was right. No offensive actions that Summer or even 1943. The Red Army was always inferior to the Wehrmacht so any Soviet offensives would have been back slapped...
Totally wrong . The aim of Kursk was to prevent a mass Soviet attack,against which Germany had nothing to oppose, by a preventive attack to eliminate the Soviet mobile forces . What happened is that while Citadel was still happening, the Soviets launched their own attack,with forces that were bigger than those the Germans used for Citadel .Citadel .
Not fot the first time Guderian was talking nonsense .The biggest enemy of Germany was general time ,against which Germany could do nothing . If, as Guderian stupidly was arguing,the mobile German reserves were remaining in the East, who would stop the Allied invasion of Italy ?
At the start of Citadel the Soviets had a superiority of 3/1 in men and tanks ,of 5/1 in artillery and of 4/1 in aircraft .A week after the start of Citadel, the Soviets started Kutuzov with a superiority in manpower of 4/1,tanks 5/1,artillery and aircraft 5/1 .And on August 7 a new Soviet offensive started .

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 » 24 Dec 2019 19:56

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
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).
You are seriously overstating here. Strategy was Hitlers domain and his senior commanders would have made different decisions if they had been allowed.

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 » 24 Dec 2019 19:59

ljadw wrote:
24 Dec 2019 19:36
corbulo wrote:
24 Dec 2019 15:47
ljadw wrote:
23 Dec 2019 20:15
Kursk had only defensive aims ,thus it was a defensive campaign .
Which was unnecessary. They could have stabilised the front and waited and rearmed. Guderian was right. No offensive actions that Summer or even 1943. The Red Army was always inferior to the Wehrmacht so any Soviet offensives would have been back slapped...
Totally wrong . The aim of Kursk was to prevent a mass Soviet attack,against which Germany had nothing to oppose, by a preventive attack to eliminate the Soviet mobile forces . What happened is that while Citadel was still happening, the Soviets launched their own attack,with forces that were bigger than those the Germans used for Citadel .Citadel .
Not fot the first time Guderian was talking nonsense .The biggest enemy of Germany was general time ,against which Germany could do nothing . If, as Guderian stupidly was arguing,the mobile German reserves were remaining in the East, who would stop the Allied invasion of Italy ?
At the start of Citadel the Soviets had a superiority of 3/1 in men and tanks ,of 5/1 in artillery and of 4/1 in aircraft .A week after the start of Citadel, the Soviets started Kutuzov with a superiority in manpower of 4/1,tanks 5/1,artillery and aircraft 5/1 .And on August 7 a new Soviet offensive started .
Kursk as executed was totally different from the original idea. Even Hitler had doubts so Guderian was making sense. You would be hard put to prove which German reserves from the eastern front were actually used against the allied invasion of Italy. LAH came too late as a transfer to Italy takes a lot of time

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

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 24 Dec 2019 20:11

Wrong and beside the point : the question is not which German reserves were transferred from the East to the West ( the answer is : not one, because of Kutuzov ) , but the question is WHY Germany started Citadel : the answer is : to be able to transfer reserves from the East to the West .
Without a successful Kursk,the German mobile reserves would be tied in the East .
Guderian was incapable to understand something a simple soldier could understand : the mobile reserves could not be at the same time in the east and in the West .Thus a decision had to be taken .
Hitler had doubts because he doubted that Kursk could succeed . But this changed nothing on the dilemma : where to go with the mobile divisions : East or West ?

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 » 25 Dec 2019 10:18

ljadw wrote:
24 Dec 2019 20:11
Wrong and beside the point : the question is not which German reserves were transferred from the East to the West ( the answer is : not one, because of Kutuzov ) , but the question is WHY Germany started Citadel : the answer is : to be able to transfer reserves from the East to the West .
Without a successful Kursk,the German mobile reserves would be tied in the East .
Guderian was incapable to understand something a simple soldier could understand : the mobile reserves could not be at the same time in the east and in the West .Thus a decision had to be taken .
Hitler had doubts because he doubted that Kursk could succeed . But this changed nothing on the dilemma : where to go with the mobile divisions : East or West ?
Even a successful Zitadelle would not prevent the Russian summer offensives. Clearly,Guderian was smarter than you as In 1943,most of the mobile divisions needed to be in the east Even Hitler did not intend to send more than a few mobile divisions to Italy.

aurelien wolff
Member
Posts: 315
Joined: 12 Aug 2018 00:31
Location: france,alsace

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by aurelien wolff » 25 Dec 2019 11:06

I feel like they couldn't win the war from the start since they didn't have the ressource for a long war,the industrial capacity and no or naval supremacy (wich couldn't even be here for them if they complete a plan Z [wich seem like impossible to complete+if they waited 1948,the ally would've been stronger ,I think their navy would be stronger per example])

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

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 25 Dec 2019 19:54

Aida1 wrote:
25 Dec 2019 10:18
ljadw wrote:
24 Dec 2019 20:11
Wrong and beside the point : the question is not which German reserves were transferred from the East to the West ( the answer is : not one, because of Kutuzov ) , but the question is WHY Germany started Citadel : the answer is : to be able to transfer reserves from the East to the West .
Without a successful Kursk,the German mobile reserves would be tied in the East .
Guderian was incapable to understand something a simple soldier could understand : the mobile reserves could not be at the same time in the east and in the West .Thus a decision had to be taken .
Hitler had doubts because he doubted that Kursk could succeed . But this changed nothing on the dilemma : where to go with the mobile divisions : East or West ?
Even a successful Zitadelle would not prevent the Russian summer offensives. Clearly,Guderian was smarter than you as In 1943,most of the mobile divisions needed to be in the east Even Hitler did not intend to send more than a few mobile divisions to Italy.
Aida1 wrote:
25 Dec 2019 10:18
ljadw wrote:
24 Dec 2019 20:11
Wrong and beside the point : the question is not which German reserves were transferred from the East to the West ( the answer is : not one, because of Kutuzov ) , but the question is WHY Germany started Citadel : the answer is : to be able to transfer reserves from the East to the West .
Without a successful Kursk,the German mobile reserves would be tied in the East .
Guderian was incapable to understand something a simple soldier could understand : the mobile reserves could not be at the same time in the east and in the West .Thus a decision had to be taken .
Hitler had doubts because he doubted that Kursk could succeed . But this changed nothing on the dilemma : where to go with the mobile divisions : East or West ?
Even a successful Zitadelle would not prevent the Russian summer offensives. Clearly,Guderian was smarter than you as In 1943,most of the mobile divisions needed to be in the east Even Hitler did not intend to send more than a few mobile divisions to Italy.
What Guderian proposed was suicidal and proved that he had to be fired immediately . It was also not his job as IG of the mobile forces to give his opinion about the strategy Germany should follow .
Germany had only a limited number of mobile divisions,who could not be on 2 different TOO at the same time .
They were insufficient to stop the Soviet summer offensives and they were needed in the West .
The worse strategy would be to hold them in reserve in the East where they could do nothing ,while the forces in the West could not stop an allied invasion in Italy .
The only reasonable solution was to commit them as soon as possible in the East to eliminate the Soviet mobile divisions and thus the danger of the Soviet summer offensives and to send them then to the East .
Germany had to take the offensive and to try to eliminate temporarily one of both enemies.It could not win the war by remaining defensive as proposed Guderian .
Guderian should better have concentrated upon the reconstruction of the mobile divisions, where he proposed a lot of idioties .

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 495
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Max Payload » 26 Dec 2019 09:26

ljadw wrote:
24 Dec 2019 19:36
corbulo wrote:
24 Dec 2019 15:47
ljadw wrote:
23 Dec 2019 20:15
Kursk had only defensive aims ,thus it was a defensive campaign .
Which was unnecessary. They could have stabilised the front and waited and rearmed. Guderian was right. No offensive actions that Summer or even 1943. The Red Army was always inferior to the Wehrmacht so any Soviet offensives would have been back slapped...
Totally wrong .
Agreed. Operations Kutuzov and Rumyantsev were just the start of a nine-months long avalanche of Soviet offensives that would have taken place irrespective of Citadel. In the absence of Citadel Hausser’s corps, at a minimum, would have been withdrawn from the Eastern Front. It is the case that without the Citadel offensive the German armies around Kursk would have been in a defensive posture in July, but on balance it is difficult to imagine how, with much of their armour having been withdrawn, that would have significantly affected the actual course of events.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”