IMO the failure to capture Moscow in 1941 put the final nail in possibility of an outright Nazi victory. An important fact that seems to be overlooked is that 20 per cent of soviet industry around Moscow was still within reach of a determined German assault in August/September 1941. If Hitler had let his generals move on Moscow in August 1941,the soviet industrial facilities could be taken or destroyed and the Red army would face serious shortages of military equipment[T-34s etc].
At what point was Nazi Germany doomed to defeat?
- Thread starter Anaxagoras
- Start date
Snake Featherston
Banned
IMHO, the Nazis were doomed when they lost Stalingrad, in 1943, El Alamein in 1942, and then spent too many lives in the Battle of Kursk. They had the option before all three of negotiating peace with the USSR, and then building up to confront the USA and UK, but failed at all three. When losses from North Africa are combined with the sheer folly of Stalingrad and Kursk, there comes the defeat of the Nazis.
Last chance of victory
In MHO the last real chance for a victory, by which I mean Germany stays under Nazi controls and control/dominates much of Europe, probably passed in spring 42. When they failed to make real use of the golden opportunity presented by Vlasov's surrender and willingness to form a RLA [Russian Liberation Army]. If the Germans had tried really running with this coupled with some efforts to restrain the excesses of the army and SS and a decide to scrap the collective farms the situation for Stalin would have been very grim. At the very least the Red army will probably be somewhere east of the Dnieper when atomic bombs start to fall on Germany. Far more likely the collapse of Soviet resistance in 42/43 would mean a negotiated peace sometime in 43/44.
Steve
In MHO the last real chance for a victory, by which I mean Germany stays under Nazi controls and control/dominates much of Europe, probably passed in spring 42. When they failed to make real use of the golden opportunity presented by Vlasov's surrender and willingness to form a RLA [Russian Liberation Army]. If the Germans had tried really running with this coupled with some efforts to restrain the excesses of the army and SS and a decide to scrap the collective farms the situation for Stalin would have been very grim. At the very least the Red army will probably be somewhere east of the Dnieper when atomic bombs start to fall on Germany. Far more likely the collapse of Soviet resistance in 42/43 would mean a negotiated peace sometime in 43/44.
Steve
Well, then it all depends on how one words the issue; and what is the implicit meaning of the wording chosen.
"Is anything the Germans do after 1939 irrelevant, because in 1945 the USA have atomic bombs?". If the implicit meaning is that the Germans can _really_ do anything, then the answer is no. Because if "anything" is the parameter, then it implicitly includes, well, anything: having occupied everything from Ireland to the Urals, or, for that matter, having spread biological weapons in Northern America, or having recruited vampires.
"Is anything the Germans _can_ do after 1939 irrelevant, because in 1945 the USA have atomic bombs?". Here the implicit meaning is that actual historical data, physics, and reality in general are limitations to the "anything" the Germans _can_ do. Now the answer, IMHO, tends to be yes. With the premises of our timeline in 1939, the Germans cannot occupy the British Isles or Soviet territory up to the Urals, much less both. Nor can they do anything even more ASBish that that (though admittedly, now that I mention it, the biological warfare idea is less ASBish than the vampires).
The Germans can get a peace with Britain in 1940 - although that is more about a British decision than a change of German strategy.
They also have a shot of taking Moscow in 1941.
Both of these combined they have effectively won the war.
If the Soviets had not taken such effective measures to sustain production in 1942 the Germans would also have had a shot at securing victory in that year - which I think would give them the chance for a negotiated peace.
So out of three points made, two depend on what others do, not on what the Germans do, and the one issue really answering the question related to what the Germans do, still needs for others to do the convenient thing.
Yep! No disagreement from me there.
The one decisive in-war manouvre entirely in Germany's control is the is the Kiev diversion.
The author Peter Fleming suggests that Britain might have been BORED into piece if Hitler had simply ignored it in 1940 rather than issue his usual threats. I am sure some provocative British bombing of Berlin would soon kill off that strategy though.
Basically, once Germany invaded the USSR and declared war on the USA, it's fate was entirely in the hands of the allies. As long as the allies sought the unconditional defeat of Nazi Germany, this was inevitable. The very last time military events engineered by Germany could have shaped allied policy was D-Day. If the Anglo-American invasion was defeated - especially if this occurred with great loss of life and material - clever German diplomacy could perhaps have led to a separate armistice with Britain and possibly the USA as well. This is very unlikely, and would required some major about faces by the UK/USA but it is not completely out of the question.
It's extremely unlikely that any German diplomatic effort would bear fruit before July. At thta point, Dragoon won't be called off, and any success in Normandy has been so costly that the Allies take a foothold in Southern France with little effort if any. Meanwhile, they have just liberated Rome, and the Soviets are about to shut off the Ploesti oil tap for good.
In a word, no.
IMHO, the germans could have had defeated the soviets and defended succesfully against the wallies, but they could not do both things at the same time.
So the only chance for Germany was to defeat the soviets in 1941, an small window of opportunity when the soviets were weak and the british still were not a threat. Some changes in Barbarrossa, taking Leningrad or going for Moscow instead of Kiev, could have meant victory, that is, the reduction of soviet threat to a non-lethal danger. An USSR without its western part, where it had most of population and industry, would make it. Then, if the RAF and USAAF become the main, maybe only threat, the new german resources would be commited to air defence to counter it.
In 1945, if the war is still going on,the Reich would be far too strong to defeat with some a-bombs.
So the only chance for Germany was to defeat the soviets in 1941, an small window of opportunity when the soviets were weak and the british still were not a threat. Some changes in Barbarrossa, taking Leningrad or going for Moscow instead of Kiev, could have meant victory, that is, the reduction of soviet threat to a non-lethal danger. An USSR without its western part, where it had most of population and industry, would make it. Then, if the RAF and USAAF become the main, maybe only threat, the new german resources would be commited to air defence to counter it.
In 1945, if the war is still going on,the Reich would be far too strong to defeat with some a-bombs.
Good points, all. But the question was about the latest point at which Germany could possibly salvage survival, not the most likely.
Hi, I just reccently join.
If the Germans had been able to capture Stalingrad, they would be able to steamroll into the Caucacus Mts. Stalingrad was also a major industrial city, transport hub, and British supplies went though the city. Losing any of these would have been a huge lose for the Soviets. I don't think The Germans could occupy all of Russia, just to about the Ural region. Think the Fatherland movie, with a never ending guerilla fighting with the Soviets.
After El Alimen they would have been able to get control of the Suez Cannal, stopping all British shipping in the region. They then would have had a clear run to the oil fields in the Middle East. They could then form the largest pincer movement ever preform, that would span over three continets (awesome, not the nazis part, they 3 continet part).
At this point they probably would have forced some sort of peace on Britain, and the shell of the Soviets, with the rebels still attacking form East of the Urals.
If the Germans had been able to capture Stalingrad, they would be able to steamroll into the Caucacus Mts. Stalingrad was also a major industrial city, transport hub, and British supplies went though the city. Losing any of these would have been a huge lose for the Soviets. I don't think The Germans could occupy all of Russia, just to about the Ural region. Think the Fatherland movie, with a never ending guerilla fighting with the Soviets.
After El Alimen they would have been able to get control of the Suez Cannal, stopping all British shipping in the region. They then would have had a clear run to the oil fields in the Middle East. They could then form the largest pincer movement ever preform, that would span over three continets (awesome, not the nazis part, they 3 continet part).
At this point they probably would have forced some sort of peace on Britain, and the shell of the Soviets, with the rebels still attacking form East of the Urals.
Hitler and his mad regime was doomed from the start. His utter incompetence in regards to most affairs, his horrific treatment of both his own people and other races, and his frankly insane dreams of conquest would always end in doom, one way or another. Even discounting such possible POD's for an earlier fall of the Reich, like Hitler's whole spree of free annexations, which were based more on luck and weariness from the Allies instead of his own skill, or the fact that Fall Gelb succeeded in neutralizing France by sheer luck alone, Germany is utterly screwed. They can't neutralize Britain, there is no way they're forcing the Soviets to capitulation even if they do take Moscow, and America was bound to enter the war sooner or later due to Hitler's allies dragging him into one, and Hitler himself acting very hostile towards the Americas.
But let's say Nazi Germany somehow does do all that, and conquers the western half of the USSR and invades/forces Britain to capitulate. The New Reich Order of Europe will last a few years at most. The Germans can't hold all the territory they'd gain, they'd choke on the huge swaths of land they'd gain, not even counting all the partisan resistance that would remain. That's assuming that Mussolini and Petain (Or whoever takes over the French State after the war) will be content to let Hitler basically dominate them and the rest of Europe forever, which might make them strike the Reich when it's already in a state of collapse. I actually had a TL idea like this, but I'm nowhere near skilled enough to write it, so meh.
But let's say Nazi Germany somehow does do all that, and conquers the western half of the USSR and invades/forces Britain to capitulate. The New Reich Order of Europe will last a few years at most. The Germans can't hold all the territory they'd gain, they'd choke on the huge swaths of land they'd gain, not even counting all the partisan resistance that would remain. That's assuming that Mussolini and Petain (Or whoever takes over the French State after the war) will be content to let Hitler basically dominate them and the rest of Europe forever, which might make them strike the Reich when it's already in a state of collapse. I actually had a TL idea like this, but I'm nowhere near skilled enough to write it, so meh.
Holy Sea-Mammal, reviving a 3 year old thread
Anyways, moving on to something relevant:Unless something happens drastically different, Fall Blau was doomed to failure. Taking Stalingrad does not totally cut of the Soviet armies in the Caucasus region and being so mountainous, it will take a very long and bloody time for the tank-centric German army to dig them out. This will leave the Germans with a much longer front line from OTL and stress their supply lines more, with added problem of having a lot of troops distracted in the Caucasus, resulting in a weaker, over extended line which the Russians will attack in 1943 in something like a super Operation Uranus. If the Germans manage to dig out the Russians in the mountains and take Baku, they will get nothing except burnt oil wells; Stalin wasn't going to let those fall into enemy hands. Hell, the British and Americans might bomb the fields on their own if they think Germany will get its hands on them.
Now then, the cliche German conquest of the Middle East: Malta, and Cyprus to an extent, will still block the German supply line. The same German supply line that had problems keeping the army supplied in Libya and was beyond overextended crossing the border into Egypy. The fact that the Germans and Italians held on as long as they did in North Africa with the supplies they had (or didn't have) is nothing short of a miracle. So, how in the world is that great supply system supposed to get the Afrikakorps over the Suez Canal, through Palestine and into Iraq? It wouldn't, plain and simple. It just wasn't possible. But lets throw logistics out the window, then. Churchill was determined to fight the war no matter the cost and he knew the value of the oil fields. If the Germans threaten the oil fields, then the British will burn as much of them as they can. It would make what the Iraqis did in Kuwait in the Gulf War look like a camp fire in comparison.
Anyways, say they take the Baku and Middle Eastern oil fields before the spring thaw in Russia. That gives them two burnt, useless oil fields. The continental pincer idea: just no. The Afrikakorps and the entire Axis army in NA would likely be barely 100,000 men from casualties and having to garrison the Middle Eastern conquests. On the Eastern Front, 100,000 men are almost useless. Also, look at a map: the Germans would have to conquer Iran to hit the Russians in the flank since they already control the Caucasus. That is completely ASB. I can't stress that enough. ASB. Whatever survives that fiasco would be so weak that the news of any attack on Russia itself won't even reach Stalin's ears...
Sorry. Rant Mode: Disengaged
And back on topic. I said Moscow/Winter of 1941. Not declaring war on the US goes a long way to helping the Germans, and with also taking Moscow their prospects are very good
Although this is a necrothread, I would agree with this. From when was Nazi Germany doomed to defeat?
In my opinion 30/1/1933.....
The industrial front
When, having gone to war in the middle of a armement program that was aiming for war in 42, they failed to fuly mobilize and racionalize industrial production, squeezing every drop of steel from German, French, Italian, etc factories for a "victory by 1942 or bust" effort until it was too late...
When, having gone to war in the middle of a armement program that was aiming for war in 42, they failed to fuly mobilize and racionalize industrial production, squeezing every drop of steel from German, French, Italian, etc factories for a "victory by 1942 or bust" effort until it was too late...