At what point was Nazi Germany doomed to defeat?

At what point was Nazi Germany doomed to defeat?

  • From the very beginning (Fall, 1939)

    Votes: 73 14.4%
  • From the defeat in the Battle of Britain (Summer, 1940)

    Votes: 32 6.3%
  • From the beginning of the invasion of Russia (Summer, 1941)

    Votes: 126 24.9%
  • From the failure to capture Moscow/American Entry into the War (Winter, 1941)

    Votes: 165 32.6%
  • From the defeats at Stalingad and El Alamein (Fall, 1942)

    Votes: 55 10.9%
  • From the defeat in Tunisia (Spring, 1943)

    Votes: 1 0.2%
  • From the beginning of effective strategic bombing (1943)

    Votes: 4 0.8%
  • From the defeat at Kursk (Summer, 1943)

    Votes: 36 7.1%
  • From D-Day (Summer, 1944)

    Votes: 12 2.4%
  • From the defeat at the Battle of the Bulge (Winter, 1944)

    Votes: 2 0.4%

  • Total voters
    506
I'd say Hitler's declaration of war against the US. Maybe, if he'd put someone competent in charge, and is very lucky, he can hold off Britain and defeat Russia (by taking the Caucasus oil), but once the US helps Stalin with Lend-Lease, it's over.
 
I'm gonna say the failure to defeat the Soviets in the Winter of 41. Stalin was on the ropes, and seriously considering negotiations. He moved the entire government east in fear that the Germans were going to seize Moscow.

Had the Germans taken Moscow, Leningrad would likely follow due to a resulting incapacity to supply Leningrad because of Moscows status as the rail hub for all of European Russia from the trans uralic factories. Furthermore, the morale shock would have been terrible to lose their two most important cities.

After that first winter, the Soviets were on war-footing, and were safe from outright defeat. They might consider a negotiated peace, but as long as the Soviets were safe from outright defeat, the Nazis were doomed, IMO.
 
Anaxagoras said:
Just like the question says: at what point was Nazi Germany doomed to defeat?
When they lost their strategic initiative, lost the hope of gaining new resources, lost a large portion of their army, in short, Stalingrad and Tobruk.
 
I chose Kursk because I read the question as at what point the Nazis were doomed to total defeat, ie no chance of a negoiated settlement. Taking into account the other possible meanings:
Point where Hitler lost control over events, dictated victory becomes impossible- the Battle of Britain
Point where victory became extremely unlikely, negoiated settlement still likely- December 1941
Point where victory was absolutely impossible, only negoiated settlement possible- Stalingrad
Point where Allies wouldn't bother negoiating, barring the most freakish of events- Kursk
 
Remember the Nazis had two atomic weapons programs. Neither of them was as well funded as it ought to have been and neither of them managed to figure out - in theory - exactly how to make a working A-bomb.

But Hitler was a fairly random guy, he could have suddenly decided to pump more resources into this "war-winning super weapon". Or one of the scientists could have had a flash of inspiration.

I chose Kursk because after this point the Nazis have diminishing resources and their options become much more limited.
 
I agree that Kursk was the point at which the Nazis were comdemned to defeat; even after Stalingrad there was still a decent chance of a negotiated settlement after von Manstein slavaged the situation.

After Kursk Germany has expended many irreplacable resources, and losing their first major battle to the Soviets in summer, when Germany had generally won battles quite handily, showed the extreme weakness of Nazi forces. It is also extremely important in that it convinced Hitler that his commanders were incompetent, thus causing him to take an increasingly direct role in military affairs. Conversely the victory gave Stalin much more faith in his generals, and thus he allowed them to have a greater degree of control.
 
To not winning? 1941.

To losing? Stalingrad, El Alamein, and Torch, or maybe the Casablanca conference at latest.
 
Last edited:
One could argue that they lost it way before it began. Their leadership was crazy, their industries had bad priorities et cetera...
 
i chose stalingrad because afther that point defeat was just a matter of time.
if they had won stalingrad than they might had also managed to capture baku, doing that means they are either going to win the war against the soviets (if they can hold it ) or atleast negotiate a peace.

but it al comes down to your defenition of a victory.

from my point of view after hitlers decleration of war against the USA any TL where they manage to not lose is pretey much a victory
 
From 1939-1941, it looked like the war would be tipped in Germany's favor. In 1942 and 1943, it was very much in doubt who would win the war, despite what Axis and Allied propaganda claimed. When the Allies invaded Normandy, it opened up a second front that the Soviets desperatley needed. If this had never happened or had failed, Germany could have held out in the USSR for at least another year.
 
By "win", I, of course, mean "settle for a favorable peace", the way winning meant centuries before. So I chose Stalingrad. If by "win" you mean "conquer and occupy every inch of your enemy", then no, that's physically impossible to do for the Axis.
 
Evil Opus said:
From 1939-1941, it looked like the war would be tipped in Germany's favor. In 1942 and 1943, it was very much in doubt who would win the war, despite what Axis and Allied propaganda claimed. When the Allies invaded Normandy, it opened up a second front that the Soviets desperatley needed. If this had never happened or had failed, Germany could have held out in the USSR for at least another year.
Nah, after the first few months of 1943 (with North Africa taken and advances in the SW Pacific) I think an Allied victory was a given. All a disaster at D-Day could've done was prolong the war in Europe by a few months.
 
I think there were two points that doomed Germany - first was their invasion of Russia. It required enormous expenditures of resources that would negatively impact their actions elsewhere - for example resolution of the situation in the Med.
Two front wars are a basic no-no!
Even if they never enter war with the US, they would be hard pressed to defeat the UK. And the longer the UK remained strong, the more the risk to the Germans
Concurrently when they declared war on the US the deed was done - there was no way they could effectively 'take the battle' to the US. The US had tremendous untapped resources/manufacturing skills that would ulitmately outproduce the German military.
 
Johnestauffer said:
Concurrently when they declared war on the US the deed was done - there was no way they could effectively 'take the battle' to the US. The US had tremendous untapped resources/manufacturing skills that would ulitmately outproduce the German military.

My thoughts exactly. From December, 1941 the outcome was inevitable. The United States had near limitless resources and more importantly, its industrial base was completely intact.
 
Stalingrad or Kursk. I can't really make my mind up at which point the astonishing run nessasary for Victory in the east had become impossible rather than merely very unlikely.

After all, the Axis had gone through Poland, France and to the gates of Moscow almost as quickly as their own vehicles could carry them. By any observation of the facts at the time, such would appear quite impossible.

So I guess Kursk. Had it been a crushing success which threw the Red Army into chaos, possibly aided by some attempt at a political coup (After all, With Stalin alot of good and vital people are likely to die in the resulting purge, and even a successful coup is likely to throw the USSR into chaos) then victory in the east might be a real possibility. With that ensured throwing the western allies out of Europe shouldn't be too difficult.

Ofcourse its not likely, but then little is.
 
Question: I recall an Alt-Hist which I never bothered to read, in which Hitler visits Manstein's headquarters shortly after 'Manstein's backhand blow' in which he used an astonishingly small force to restore the front after the surrender of Stalingrad. Hitler spews his usual venom, Manstein blows Hitler away, and sounder leadership seizes power in the Reich.

47 years later...

The Soviets eventually forfeited the Baltic States, Belarus, and half of Ukraine while the western Allies never got more than half of Italy and a neutralized France following the disaster at D-Day(since the Wehrmacht was not needed in Russia).

Could this have happened at any point? For instance, if the Germans went on the defensive pending the arrival of jet fighters, advanced subs and so forth and never launched offensives at Kursk or squandered units elsewhere.
 
I remember reading a AH in the anthology Third Reich Victorious where the Russians suffer a major defeat at Kursk (they attack instead of the Germans, effectively causing the reverse of OTL), and the Allies are bloodied in a prolonged campaign in Sicily, leading a frustated Stalin to agree to a armistice...
 
Top