At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
ljadw
Member
Posts: 10500
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 24 Jul 2020 15:43

mezsat2 wrote:
21 Jun 2020 17:38
Skysoldier80 wrote:
19 Jun 2020 16:01
I would say when they gave up on Taking England Out. They should have not attacked Russia until England was neutralized. Next, I would have attacked Russia and went straight to Moscow instead of first tryi BF to capture the oils fields. Finally I would have not gotten involved with supporting the Italians in North Africa. They should have went straight through Spain and taken Gibraltar instead of focusing on Crete. Many mistakes; Obviously a good think.
I believe the exact opposite. After Dunkirk, Hitler could unilaterally sign a peace treaty with Britain. That is, no air attacks, no U-Boats, nothing. Sure, Churchill could still carry out a few night air attacks (which the Germans would classify immediately as acts of terrorism, since they would not be at war with Britain). Once Hitler is striking full-bore against the USSR, it's quite unlikely the Brits would support Stalin and Communism over Hitler for an extended period of time. As the poster mentions, Germany should have just stayed out of N. Africa. Italy would fall to the British- so what? They're going nowhere past the Alps under any circumstances. Hitler was so damned obssessed with the Rumanian air fields, but remember, it was US bombers, not British bombers hitting at Ploesti. Bomber Command would have be virtually annihilated in similar forays.

Deeply divided, and lukewarm on another war in Europe, anyway, the United States would DEFINITELY not have supported involvement in the conflict under those conditions. Churchill would have been voted out in a year or two and Hitler may very well have achieved his Eurasion Empire.
Stopping unilaterally the war with Britain would be very stupid: Britain would continue the war and would become stronger every day .And if he stopped the war with Britain, there would be NO German attack on the USSR .The ONLY reason for Barbarossa was that Britain refused to give up .
And about the USA : war with Germany was inevitable ,because US would not allow a German domination of Europe .It was no coincidence that at the end of June 1940 Britain decided to continue the war : there was a GOP convention at the end of June and W.Willkie was elected candidate ,a man who had the same foreign policy as FDR .
Britain would continue the was as long it had the support of the USA and USA would support Britain as long as it continued the war , and soon, very soon,this support would result in war with Germany ,something Germany knew very well and something which dictated,determined Hitler's strategy .

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5101
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by glenn239 » 25 Jul 2020 15:44

ljadw wrote:
24 Jul 2020 15:43
Stopping unilaterally the war with Britain would be very stupid: Britain would continue the war and would become stronger every day .And if he stopped the war with Britain, there would be NO German attack on the USSR .The ONLY reason for Barbarossa was that Britain refused to give up .
Your first and last sentences contradict one another, in that if unilaterally stopping the war with Britain causes Barbarossa not to occur, then this would be the smartest strategic outcome for Germany, not "very stupid".

The idea that Britain becomes "stronger every day" also has no merit. The British war economy was, in fact, finite after which they'd have been broke. They did not have the will nor the money, nor the resources, for a perpetual war.

You also do not account for the Soviet Union and the outlook of the Communists under Stalin. The British and French Empires in the post-war period were the subject of Soviet foreign escapades to export communism. The idea that this would not occur during the war if Germany and the Soviets remained friendly seems a tad optimistic. If, for example there were no Barbarossa in 1941, what prevents Stalin from occupying Iran in 1942 and installing a communist government there? A nice letter from the Queen (King?) perhaps?
And about the USA : war with Germany was inevitable ,because US would not allow a German domination of Europe.
I think its more accurate to say that the US would not allow the German occupation of France. So, the 'what if' here is a German peace treaty with France in 1940. Specifically, the Germans have the French agree to that nonsense suggestion by Churchill for a political union, and make sure some silly document or other was signed. Then the Germans sign a peace treaty with the French and use said silly Anglo-French "union" as the basis for the position that Britain has made peace via their partners.

Either way, it would be child's play for Germany to make a peace with France and evacuate France entirely except for a precautionary possession of the Maginot Line until the British stopped fighting. If the British wished to blockade the now neutral France, then this would be France's problem - Germany would be under no obligation to support them against a blockade. The French fleet, on the other hand, might need to take action.

It was no coincidence that at the end of June 1940 Britain decided to continue the war : there was a GOP convention at the end of June and W.Willkie was elected candidate ,a man who had the same foreign policy as FDR .
Maybe, but foreign policy tends to take a back seat to the domestic stuff in US elections.
Britain would continue the was as long it had the support of the USA and USA would support Britain as long as it continued the war , and soon, very soon,this support would result in war with Germany ,something Germany knew very well and something which dictated,determined Hitler's strategy .
It was Hitler's decisions after the fall of France that galvanized intervention. Had Germany made peace with France and called the occupation troops home so that France was independent and unoccupied, there is no reason to suppose that the US would be any more interested in the outcome than they were in, say, 1871.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10500
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 25 Jul 2020 18:21

glenn239 wrote:
25 Jul 2020 15:44
ljadw wrote:
24 Jul 2020 15:43
Stopping unilaterally the war with Britain would be very stupid: Britain would continue the war and would become stronger every day .And if he stopped the war with Britain, there would be NO German attack on the USSR .The ONLY reason for Barbarossa was that Britain refused to give up .
Your first and last sentences contradict one another, in that if unilaterally stopping the war with Britain causes Barbarossa not to occur, then this would be the smartest strategic outcome for Germany, not "very stupid".

The idea that Britain becomes "stronger every day" also has no merit. The British war economy was, in fact, finite after which they'd have been broke. They did not have the will nor the money, nor the resources, for a perpetual war.

You also do not account for the Soviet Union and the outlook of the Communists under Stalin. The British and French Empires in the post-war period were the subject of Soviet foreign escapades to export communism. The idea that this would not occur during the war if Germany and the Soviets remained friendly seems a tad optimistic. If, for example there were no Barbarossa in 1941, what prevents Stalin from occupying Iran in 1942 and installing a communist government there? A nice letter from the Queen (King?) perhaps?
And about the USA : war with Germany was inevitable ,because US would not allow a German domination of Europe.
I think its more accurate to say that the US would not allow the German occupation of France. So, the 'what if' here is a German peace treaty with France in 1940. Specifically, the Germans have the French agree to that nonsense suggestion by Churchill for a political union, and make sure some silly document or other was signed. Then the Germans sign a peace treaty with the French and use said silly Anglo-French "union" as the basis for the position that Britain has made peace via their partners.

Either way, it would be child's play for Germany to make a peace with France and evacuate France entirely except for a precautionary possession of the Maginot Line until the British stopped fighting. If the British wished to blockade the now neutral France, then this would be France's problem - Germany would be under no obligation to support them against a blockade. The French fleet, on the other hand, might need to take action.

It was no coincidence that at the end of June 1940 Britain decided to continue the war : there was a GOP convention at the end of June and W.Willkie was elected candidate ,a man who had the same foreign policy as FDR .
Maybe, but foreign policy tends to take a back seat to the domestic stuff in US elections.
Britain would continue the was as long it had the support of the USA and USA would support Britain as long as it continued the war , and soon, very soon,this support would result in war with Germany ,something Germany knew very well and something which dictated,determined Hitler's strategy .
It was Hitler's decisions after the fall of France that galvanized intervention. Had Germany made peace with France and called the occupation troops home so that France was independent and unoccupied, there is no reason to suppose that the US would be any more interested in the outcome than they were in, say, 1871.
Hitler could stop the war with Britain, but Britain would not stop the war with Germany .
If the war with Britain was over,because of British collapse,there would be no need to attack the USSR,neither would Germany able to do it .
If Hitler had made peace with France and withdrew his forces, France would restart the war .
And, yes, Britain became stronger : its home forces were stronger in June 1941 than in June 1940, it outproduced Germany in aircraft, the RN was stronger in June 1941 than in June 1940,its merchant fleet increased more than the vessels lost by the U Boats .
US intervention was already written in the future at the end of June 1940 ,when Willkie became GOP presidential candidate : if Willkie had defeated FDR,there would also be war with Germany .The only chance for Hitler was the election of an isolationist as Potus .
He could not force Britain to capitulate, he could do nothing against the USA,the only power he could eliminate (better :try to eliminate ) was the USSR,and he decided to do this,full of the wishful thinking that this would cause Britain to give up .
But even if he defeated the USSR and this resulted in the capitulation of Britain, it would not help him .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10500
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 26 Jul 2020 08:42

glenn239 wrote:
25 Jul 2020 15:44





You also do not account for the Soviet Union and the outlook of the Communists under Stalin. The British and French Empires in the post-war period were the subject of Soviet foreign escapades to export communism. The idea that this would not occur during the war if Germany and the Soviets remained friendly seems a tad optimistic. If, for example there were no Barbarossa in 1941, what prevents Stalin from occupying Iran in 1942 and installing a communist government there? A nice letter from the Queen (King?) perhaps?







The example of Iran is a wrong one : WHY should Stalin invade Iran ? There was nothing in Iran he needed or he could use . Only Muslims and he had already a lot of problems with the Muslims in the USSR.An invasion of Iran would have the same results as the invasion of Afghanistan . And, Iran was not a British colony .And there was also the danger that such an invasion could restore unity in the capitalist camp and cause an invasion of the USSR.
It is also questionable to claim that the British and French Empires were after the war subject to Soviet foreign escapades to export communism : there was no Soviet attempt to export communism in Palestine, Cyprus, Aden, Malaysia, Kenya .
Stalin was very circumspect and very careful: he could have occupied Finland in 1940 and 1944,or Norway in 1945 , but he didn't,one of the reasons being that he did not trust foreign(=non Soviet ) communists,he also did not trust Soviet communists .
He was more realistic than some of his successors: Nikita K.was a dilettante compared to Stalin .

Globalization41
Member
Posts: 1139
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 02:52
Location: California

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Globalization41 » 26 Jul 2020 22:37

Stalin feared Britain more than Hitler up until about a month before Barbarossa. The Soviet dictator suspected British warnings of Hitler's danger were attempts to draw the U.S.S.R. into the war and thereby decrease Britain's war burden. Stalin hoped to see Britain (and France) tie down the Germans. … Invasions were the fad back in those days. Stalin assumed Finland could easily be invaded and occupied. Britain and other enlightened countries opposed the occupation of Finland. Stalin claimed Finland on the grounds of previous ownership by the Russian Czar. … The Red Army bogged down. The pragmatic Stalin made a strategic retreat by agreeing to peace in Finland and thus not diverting Britain from its war effort with Hitler. Meanwhile, Hitler blocked British and French intervention against the Soviets in Finland by invading Norway. … Despite the setback in Finland, it still looked good for Stalin. Hitler was concentrating on France and England. Many experts considered the French Army one of the best in the world. Now was the time for Stalin to snatch the Baltics back into the Russian Empire. Stalin also began moving on the Dardanelles by occupying hopefully an eventual land bridge along the Black Sea shore at Rumania's expense and by interfering in Bulgarian politics. Bulgaria actually leaned pro-Russian, but Hitler wanted Bulgaria for the Axis. … … In 1944, Stalin attempted to bluff free Finland into concessions just before the Summer offensive against Germany. However, Roosevelt and western allies liked the heroic Finns. Stalin needed F.D.R.'s post-war cooperation and concessions in eastern Europe. Finland was not transferred to Stalin.

Globalization41.
Last edited by Globalization41 on 27 Jul 2020 13:42, edited 1 time in total.

Senex
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 26 Jul 2020 19:14
Location: Washington, DC

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Senex » 26 Jul 2020 22:46

I asked this exact question to a German colleague of mine (in the Bundeswehr). He knows more about the Second World War than most Germans (but is no fan of the Nazis in case anyone makes that connection).
He said 22 June 1941. At that point, Germany had lost the war. It was simply a question of how many Germans were going to have to die first. Sadly for Germany, the answer was "a lot" and a lot of others as well.

Senex
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 26 Jul 2020 19:14
Location: Washington, DC

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Senex » 26 Jul 2020 22:57

Globalization41 wrote:
26 Jul 2020 22:37
In 1944, Stalin attempted to bluff free Finland into concessions just before the Summer offensive against Germany. However, Roosevelt and western allies liked the heroic Finns. Stalin needed F.D.R.'s post-war cooperation in eastern Europe. Free Finland was not transferred to Stalin.
I believe the initiative for the Finnish departure from the Axis was a Finnish initiative not a Soviet one.
In the summer 1944, Finnish strategic planners determined that the Germans were going to lose and take Finland with them. Mannerheim became head of state and proposed to Stalin that Finland leave the Axis cause. Stalin had use elsewhere for the Red Army forces facing Finland so Stalin agreed on the condition that Finland remain non-aligned in the postwar environment and maintain equipment compatibility with the Red Army two conditions that Finland has maintained to this day.

Globalization41
Member
Posts: 1139
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 02:52
Location: California

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Globalization41 » 27 Jul 2020 00:47

Hitler could have avoided losing the war after June 22, 1941, by not declaring war on America. The Eastern Front would have most likely ended in a stalemate. … … Stalin wanted a Finnish puppet state. Before the Soviet 1944 summer offensive in eastern Europe, he was looking for any concessions that would get him closer to that. The Soviets made a lot of noise in the direction of Finland before going all out against Hitler with possibly the most massive offensive of all time. Fortress Europe was under siege. It was only a matter of time for Finland. But there was still a chance of avoiding Siberia. The Finns could hide out infinitely in a vast countryside of lakes and forests. Stalin would have been stuck in a political and military quagmire. Finland would have been high maintenance. … I'm not sure if post-WWII Finland was subject to Soviet extradition.

Globalization41.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5101
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by glenn239 » 27 Jul 2020 17:18

ljadw wrote:
26 Jul 2020 08:42
The example of Iran is a wrong one : WHY should Stalin invade Iran? There was nothing in Iran he needed or he could use .
Soviet domination of the Middle East via Iran would have allowed Stalin to corner much of the world's oil production.
Stalin was very circumspect and very careful: he could have occupied Finland in 1940 and 1944,or Norway in 1945 , but he didn't,one of the reasons being that he did not trust foreign(=non Soviet ) communists,he also did not trust Soviet communists .
He was more realistic than some of his successors: Nikita K.was a dilettante compared to Stalin .
You're inventing reasons why Stalin wouldn't do what Stalin could have done if Hitler hadn't attacked in 1941.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5101
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by glenn239 » 27 Jul 2020 17:32

ljadw wrote:
25 Jul 2020 18:21
Hitler could stop the war with Britain, but Britain would not stop the war with Germany .
If Germany stops the war with Britain unilaterally and withdraws from Western Europe, the call for intervention in the USA will die down. As time goes on, the friction between France and Britain over Britain blockading France from overseas trade will increase. The RAF will continue to raid Germany, and the blockade will continue, but the ability of Britain to end the war on its terms would not exist. Eventually, if the US and USSR do not enter the war, British determination evaporates, Churchill falls, and the war fizzles out.
If Hitler had made peace with France and withdrew his forces, France would restart the war .
No, it would not. The Germans would retain the Maginot line and the French would have surrendered enough equipment that attacking Germany would be an unfathomable idea. If, however, the Germans subsequently invaded the USSR, French options would increase.
And, yes, Britain became stronger : its home forces were stronger in June 1941 than in June 1940, it outproduced Germany in aircraft, the RN was stronger in June 1941 than in June 1940,its merchant fleet increased more than the vessels lost by the U Boats .
The British will become weaker over time because they will run out of money. Their only offensive hope is the US and the RAF, the former might remain neutral, the latter fought a campaign which would not succeed.
US intervention was already written in the future at the end of June 1940 ,when Willkie became GOP presidential candidate : if Willkie had defeated FDR,there would also be war with Germany .The only chance for Hitler was the election of an isolationist as Potus .
US intervention was not inevitable, especially if Germany makes peace with France and withdraws from Western Europe, and stays out of the Soviet Union.
He could not force Britain to capitulate...
Germany did not have to force the British to capitulate. All it had to do was keep the US and USSR out of the war and the collapse of the British war effort (lack of finances, evaporating war will) became inevitable.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10500
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 27 Jul 2020 18:33

glenn239 wrote:
27 Jul 2020 17:18
ljadw wrote:
26 Jul 2020 08:42
The example of Iran is a wrong one : WHY should Stalin invade Iran? There was nothing in Iran he needed or he could use .
Soviet domination of the Middle East via Iran would have allowed Stalin to corner much of the world's oil production.
Stalin was very circumspect and very careful: he could have occupied Finland in 1940 and 1944,or Norway in 1945 , but he didn't,one of the reasons being that he did not trust foreign(=non Soviet ) communists,he also did not trust Soviet communists .
He was more realistic than some of his successors: Nikita K.was a dilettante compared to Stalin .
You're inventing reasons why Stalin wouldn't do what Stalin could have done if Hitler hadn't attacked in 1941.
1)The World did not need the oil of the ME before and DURING WWII.
Oil production in 1940
US: 182 million ton
Rest of the Americas : 47 million ton
ME : 13 million
Rest of Asia : 10 million
USSR : 30,5 million
Romania : 5,8
Total world production : 293 million ton,of which some 4 % from the ME.
Stalin also did not need the ME oil,as the USSR produced more oil than it could use .
2) There is no proof that Stalin would have done if there was no Barbarossa what you claim he could/would have done .
WHY would he invade Iran ?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10500
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 27 Jul 2020 18:40

glenn239 wrote:
27 Jul 2020 17:32
ljadw wrote:
25 Jul 2020 18:21
Hitler could stop the war with Britain, but Britain would not stop the war with Germany .
If Germany stops the war with Britain unilaterally and withdraws from Western Europe, the call for intervention in the USA will die down. As time goes on, the friction between France and Britain over Britain blockading France from overseas trade will increase. The RAF will continue to raid Germany, and the blockade will continue, but the ability of Britain to end the war on its terms would not exist. Eventually, if the US and USSR do not enter the war, British determination evaporates, Churchill falls, and the war fizzles out.
If Hitler had made peace with France and withdrew his forces, France would restart the war .
No, it would not. The Germans would retain the Maginot line and the French would have surrendered enough equipment that attacking Germany would be an unfathomable idea. If, however, the Germans subsequently invaded the USSR, French options would increase.
And, yes, Britain became stronger : its home forces were stronger in June 1941 than in June 1940, it outproduced Germany in aircraft, the RN was stronger in June 1941 than in June 1940,its merchant fleet increased more than the vessels lost by the U Boats .
The British will become weaker over time because they will run out of money. Their only offensive hope is the US and the RAF, the former might remain neutral, the latter fought a campaign which would not succeed.
US intervention was already written in the future at the end of June 1940 ,when Willkie became GOP presidential candidate : if Willkie had defeated FDR,there would also be war with Germany .The only chance for Hitler was the election of an isolationist as Potus .
US intervention was not inevitable, especially if Germany makes peace with France and withdraws from Western Europe, and stays out of the Soviet Union.
He could not force Britain to capitulate...
Germany did not have to force the British to capitulate. All it had to do was keep the US and USSR out of the war and the collapse of the British war effort (lack of finances, evaporating war will) became inevitable.
After the choice of Willkie as GOP candidate, war with the US was inevitable : peace draft, 2 ocean navy, LL,...
General time was running against Germany,that's why at the end of June Hitler was thinking of Barbarossa in 1940 .
If Germany withdrew from France, a new BEF would land in Normandy and everything would restart : what Germany conquered by force, it had to conserve it by force .

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Max Payload » 28 Jul 2020 10:17

ljadw wrote:
27 Jul 2020 18:40
what Germany conquered by force, it had to conserve it by force .
That would have fit with Hitler’s long-held position of, “What we have, we hold.”
Germany would have needed to continue the occupation of Denmark and Norway in order to secure the Baltic and access to Scandinavian minerals. To withdraw from France and the Low Countries, even with a deal that included the effective demilitarisation of those countries and the neutralisation of the Maginot Line, would have been risky. Any deal would have necessarily included a commitment by France and Belgium to defend, possibly with German assistance, their Channel coastlines from invasion. It would also have left Germany dependent, so long as a British naval blockade continued, on Soviet compliance with its trade agreements and the Non-Agression Pact.
Yet such a move could have weakened Britain’s ability to continue the war. Bombing raids would have had to overfly friendly countries, a naval blockade would hurt friendly countries, and any US President would have found it difficult to justify further US involvement, particularly if Germany suspended its naval operations in the Atlantic. Meanwhile British land operations against Germany would have been limited to commando raids on Norway.
If continuation of the war was perceived as being futile, pressure may have grown on Churchill to bring it to an end.
Yet such considerations would have been too nebulous for Hitler and he couldn’t have remained dependent on Soviet goodwill for any significant length of time.

Globalization41
Member
Posts: 1139
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 02:52
Location: California

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Globalization41 » 28 Jul 2020 12:44

Interventionist Willkie was picked to run in 1940 because the GOP convention occurred at the height of the blitz on France. Hitler was on a big winning streak and it appeared to many that he was out to make war on the world. The isolationists were in temporary disfavor. … However, the U.S. in general leaned toward isolationism. Roosevelt politically cut off Willkie at the pass by adopting an isolationist plank to gather in more votes. F.D.R.'s interventionism afterward was blocked by America's overall isolationism. Hitler's increasing aggressions resulted in negative propaganda in America, but F.D.R.'s hands were tied. … Japan could have bypassed the Philippines without bringing America into the war. A few minor skirmishes would have been more economically strategic than having the whole country wiped out. … Thanks to the hated isolationists that he didn't, but if Roosevelt had jumped into WWII before Pearl Harbor he would not have had the political support necessary to win WWII.

Globalization41.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10500
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 28 Jul 2020 13:27

Globalization41 wrote:
28 Jul 2020 12:44
Interventionist Willkie was picked to run in 1940 because the GOP convention occurred at the height of the blitz on France. Hitler was on a big winning streak and it appeared to many that he was out to make war on the world. The isolationists were in temporary disfavor. … However, the U.S. in general leaned toward isolationism. Roosevelt politically cut off Willkie at the pass by adopting an isolationist plank to gather in more votes. F.D.R.'s interventionism afterward was blocked by America's overall isolationism. Hitler's increasing aggressions resulted in negative propaganda in America, but F.D.R.'s hands were tied. … Japan could have bypassed the Philippines without bringing America into the war. A few minor skirmishes would have been more economically strategic than having the whole country wiped out. … Thanks to the hated isolationists that he didn't, but if Roosevelt had jumped into WWII before Pearl Harbor he would not have had the political support necessary to win WWII.

Globalization41.
USA did not lean towards isolationism :2 ocean navy, the Marines in Iceland, LL,sanctions against Japan, the DD deal,peacetime draft,...
The military budget was $ 980 million in 1939, but in January 1940 (BEFORE Fall Gelb) Roosevelt asked ( and got ) $ 1,8 billion, in July 1940,he asked ( and got ) $ 5 billion .
Why did FDR want a strong navy in the Atlantic while the KM was no threat for the USA ? The reason was to intervene against Germany .Hitler knew it,and that's why he was in a hurry to eliminate Britain,because : if the Wehrmacht was defending the coast of Ireland and Scotland, the risk for an American landing would be small. Hitler hoped that it would be non existent .
And, as the BOB,the Blitz, the U Boat war, an intervention in NA/ME could not /were not able to force Britain to give up, only an intervention in the east remained .

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”