At what point was Nazi Germany doomed to defeat?
- Thread starter Anaxagoras
- Start date
Yeah, that's what Hitler's hoping for with the peace: that it'll break up the Allies. And it does, after Sicily is evacuated it's implied that the remaining two split, with America deciding to focus on the Pacific. I wouldn't be suprised if once Hitler makes peace with both of them based on the status quo, he restarts the war in the East...Wendell said:
The day that Hitler decided that fighting the Soviets & the Russian winter was just too damned easy & gave the U.S. the excuse that FDR had been looking for by declaring war, Germany was finished. What was the fool thinking?
"Yea, let's get the country most invunerable to attack, with a population three times mine, & the largest, most innovative, manufacturing economy on the Planet teamed up with the largest country on the Planet which has already show signs of being a lot tougher nut than I had ever imagined and has a history of swallowing invading armies whole. What a GREAT plan! Glad I thought of it!"
Even if all the U.S. & UK had done was fight an air & naval war and sent trucks & supplies to Ivan, Hitler was done. With sufficient supplies & Stalin's willingness to expend troops, the USSR was going to wind up in Berlin. The Western Allies ground actions undoubtedly ended the war more quickly; but they had the primary effect of limiting the spread of Soviet Communism.
The forces that Hitler had to dedicate to homeland air defense and the resources wasted in the Battle of the Atlantic were sufficient to tip the balance in the Allies' favor; that the Germans pissed away a half million men in defending part of Africa and in Italy was just sauce for the goose.
"Yea, let's get the country most invunerable to attack, with a population three times mine, & the largest, most innovative, manufacturing economy on the Planet teamed up with the largest country on the Planet which has already show signs of being a lot tougher nut than I had ever imagined and has a history of swallowing invading armies whole. What a GREAT plan! Glad I thought of it!"
Even if all the U.S. & UK had done was fight an air & naval war and sent trucks & supplies to Ivan, Hitler was done. With sufficient supplies & Stalin's willingness to expend troops, the USSR was going to wind up in Berlin. The Western Allies ground actions undoubtedly ended the war more quickly; but they had the primary effect of limiting the spread of Soviet Communism.
The forces that Hitler had to dedicate to homeland air defense and the resources wasted in the Battle of the Atlantic were sufficient to tip the balance in the Allies' favor; that the Germans pissed away a half million men in defending part of Africa and in Italy was just sauce for the goose.
Kursk is probably it, though the battle itself didn't really do much to hinder the nazis. It was really the loss in initiative after the Russian conteroffensive that broke down the nazis. The nazis fought pretty well in Russia from late 1943-early 1944, inflicting major casualties while retreating, however, this only shows that they can only prolong defeat, not stop it. I tried to imagine a best-case Nazi scenario starting from a loss in D-day. While the soviet's progress would be slower, they would still eek out a victory by 1946.
The germans could not win a war of attrition. So, its only chance was to beat their foes quickly. Hitler lost its chance to do so in the summer-fall of 1941 in the east. And in december with its dow to the USA. Then he had to fight two foes that had a big industrial and human base out of his reach, in the Urals and in America. He could not reach America, but had a chance to destroy the core of the USRR in summer-fall of 1941. Taking Leningrad and Moscow -and the area around it- COULD have been a decisive blow in those months.
Redbeard
Banned
Only answer what the man asks about!
That wasn't about the last chance for victory but for avoiding defeat - not the same thing
My answer was D-day, as an utterly failed invasion of Normandy would have had a fair chance of some kind of negotiated peace leaving the Germans in control of at least Germany and perhaps some of the loot. The Bulge IMO is too much ASB to give the same opportunities.
The last chance for victory IMO is somewhere between the decision to divert Armygroup Center from Moscow in late summer 1941 and summer of 1942.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
That wasn't about the last chance for victory but for avoiding defeat - not the same thing
My answer was D-day, as an utterly failed invasion of Normandy would have had a fair chance of some kind of negotiated peace leaving the Germans in control of at least Germany and perhaps some of the loot. The Bulge IMO is too much ASB to give the same opportunities.
The last chance for victory IMO is somewhere between the decision to divert Armygroup Center from Moscow in late summer 1941 and summer of 1942.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Well, I chose Stalingrad and El Alamein, but mainly as last point where Nazi Germany might not end up utterly loosing.
If they managed to succeed in both theatres they could pull off something negotiated (for example Turkey is likely to be more pro Axis with Rommel buzzing around Suez/Sinai and Heeresgruppe Süd having a firm grip in the Caucasus)
Of course this would need a Hitler willing to negotiate things, and with those two campaigns being succesful I guess he might just reject the idea (because the "invincible Herrenmensch" don't need negotiations).
And as for winning the war, we'd need a PoD at least prior to 42, which should include the removal of Hitler and other weirdos (and maybe Churchill to get Britain signing an armistice)
If they managed to succeed in both theatres they could pull off something negotiated (for example Turkey is likely to be more pro Axis with Rommel buzzing around Suez/Sinai and Heeresgruppe Süd having a firm grip in the Caucasus)
Of course this would need a Hitler willing to negotiate things, and with those two campaigns being succesful I guess he might just reject the idea (because the "invincible Herrenmensch" don't need negotiations).
And as for winning the war, we'd need a PoD at least prior to 42, which should include the removal of Hitler and other weirdos (and maybe Churchill to get Britain signing an armistice)
2 possible answers
1. from the very beginning, but not Fall 1939.
1936 is more likely.
In 1936 the 4-year-plan for a war economy started.
Without the war and it's material gains, the NAzis would soon have run out of money, and the State would have collapsed.
2. December 1941 due to the japanese attack on Pearl Harbor
Stalin knew that Japan would not fight against the SU and the US.
So after Pearl Harbor he used most of his troups in the far East to defend Moscow, since he did not have to fear Japan any more.
So without Pearl Harbor, Moscow might have fallen.
1. from the very beginning, but not Fall 1939.
1936 is more likely.
In 1936 the 4-year-plan for a war economy started.
Without the war and it's material gains, the NAzis would soon have run out of money, and the State would have collapsed.
2. December 1941 due to the japanese attack on Pearl Harbor
Stalin knew that Japan would not fight against the SU and the US.
So after Pearl Harbor he used most of his troups in the far East to defend Moscow, since he did not have to fear Japan any more.
So without Pearl Harbor, Moscow might have fallen.
The BoB, 1940. With Britain constantly a thorn in Germany's side throughout the war, sending raiding parties to occupied territories and resupplying local resistance, Nazi Germany had to tie a lot of troops for anti-partisan/counter-raid duty that would have been better used on the Eastern Front against the Soviets.
It can be argued however, that Hitler's idiocy and psycho worldview was what actually lost the war, as early as 1934.
It can be argued however, that Hitler's idiocy and psycho worldview was what actually lost the war, as early as 1934.
Redbeard said:Only answer what the man asks about!
That wasn't about the last chance for victory but for avoiding defeat - not the same thing
d
In Hitler's case, I think the only way to avoid defeat was to win, at least in the east. It's hard to imagine Hitler and Stalin negotiating, it was very much a war of destruction. As long as any of them had a chance of victory -or the feeling of having it-, he would keep figthing, and forcing the other to do so.
George Carty
Banned
I picked "Winter 1941" because once the US is in the war, German survival up to (let's say) 1947 merely results in the Third Reich perishing beneath a hail of A-bombs.
Redbeard said:Only answer what the man asks about!
That wasn't about the last chance for victory but for avoiding defeat - not the same thing
Ah but they are.
Avoiding defeat becomes impossible when one can no longer win......
Battle of Britain was the turning point even though Germany still has the better of the war for the next year or so it always comes down to getting a peace with Britain.
Regardless on whether or not Britain makes concessions any peace with Britain before the invasion of Russia wouls allow the Germans to use their full military might against the russiian instead of having them in norway, holland, belgium, france, north africa, italy, the baulkans and greece.
Too many valuable division and squadrons of aircraft were watching for Britain.
Had Germany somehow managed to get a peace treaty with Britain then it would have been faced with only a one front war all be it a large front instead of the three front war they ended up fighting.
And with Britain out The US probably would not have got very involved with the totalitarian war in eastern europe except for selling resources to who ever could pay for them.
Regardless on whether or not Britain makes concessions any peace with Britain before the invasion of Russia wouls allow the Germans to use their full military might against the russiian instead of having them in norway, holland, belgium, france, north africa, italy, the baulkans and greece.
Too many valuable division and squadrons of aircraft were watching for Britain.
Had Germany somehow managed to get a peace treaty with Britain then it would have been faced with only a one front war all be it a large front instead of the three front war they ended up fighting.
And with Britain out The US probably would not have got very involved with the totalitarian war in eastern europe except for selling resources to who ever could pay for them.
Bulgaroktonos said:
A stalemate or status quo ante peace is still possible, even if one can no longer win.
To win Hitler needs to take Moscow, he forfeits this opportunity in late summer 1941, the probability of success is on a downward slope after that.
Actually I do not consider the declaration of war on the USA decisive, although US entry of course was. However there are other ways this could have come about
Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper
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.
Manstein, Manstein, Manstein.
One of only two Wehrmacht Field Marshalls to write memoirs, and his are the only set ever published. Since when they have been read and re-read and re-hashed by every historian for whom actual research was too much effort.
Can we please have some WWII ATL's which do not feature Manstein or Speer?
Actually I do not consider the declaration of war on the USA decisive, although US entry of course was. However there are other ways this could have come about
Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper
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.
Manstein, Manstein, Manstein.
One of only two Wehrmacht Field Marshalls to write memoirs, and his are the only set ever published. Since when they have been read and re-read and re-hashed by every historian for whom actual research was too much effort.
Can we please have some WWII ATL's which do not feature Manstein or Speer?