At what point was Nazi Germany doomed to defeat?

Discussion in 'Historical Events Coffee House' started by Sokol-1, Jan 20, 2012.

?

At what point was Nazi Germany doomed to defeat?

From the very beginning (Fall, 1939) 1 vote(s) 1.9%
From the defeat in the Battle of Britain (Summer, 1940) 3 vote(s) 5.6%
From the beginning of the invasion of Russia (Summer, 1941) 12 vote(s) 22.2%
From the failure to capture Moscow/American Entry into the War (Winter, 1941) 19 vote(s) 35.2%
From the defeats at Stalingad and El Alamein (Fall, 1942) 10 vote(s) 18.5%
From the defeat in Tunisia (Spring, 1943) 0 vote(s) 0.0%
From the beginning of effective strategic bombing (1943) 1 vote(s) 1.9%
From the defeat at Kursk (Summer, 1943) 6 vote(s) 11.1%
From D-Day (Summer, 1944) 1 vote(s) 1.9%
From the defeat at the Battle of the Bulge (Winter, 1944) 1 vote(s) 1.9%
Page 2 of 7

  1. Yarpen Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,541
    Likes Received:
    744
    Trophy Points:
    163
    Location:
    Bs. As.,Argentina
    It's just me, or I see a lot of HOI2/Darkest Hour influence?
    Yarpen, Apr 7, 2012
    #21

  2. Shisno Doesn't know who did this

    Member Since:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Message Count:
    2,641
    Likes Received:
    739
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Location:
    NKVD Underground
    Stalingrad and El Alamein: Hitler quite easily invaded the Soviet Union, and had overwhelmed about everything. While he may have not taken Moscow, he was still in the superior position. As soon as he lost at Stalingrad, then German forces in the Crimea could be cut off from Soviet forces that recently defeated Manstein at Stalingrad. If the Nazis won at Stalingrad, then the entire Caucus oilfields would be open, and would ensure an entire German victory over the Soviets, who would be cut off from that oil. The Soviets were already cut off from the Ukraine grain, and being cut off from the oil would be the coup-de-grace. At El Alamein, if the Nazis had won, Montgomery's army would be neutralized and Egypt would be in Nazi hands. Then, when Operation Torch and the Allies invaded Morocco, the Germans could double back, not having to worry about the British at their backs. But because they lost, their were Americans and British at Rommel's forces. After both defeats, the Nazis. I also have to point out before both battles, the Nazis were at their high-water mark. They controlled the most territory in their entire history, from France to the Ukraine and the outskirts of Moscow, from Greece to Tunisia, and even Morocco was under their control through the puppet Vichy France.
    Shisno, Apr 7, 2012
    #22

  3. slydessertfox Total War Branch Head

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    11,853
    Likes Received:
    1,425
    Trophy Points:
    373
    Location:
    Mars
    I think that those 6 weeks that Hitler delayed operation Barbarossa to help the extremely incompetent italians take over the balkans, cost him dearly in his invasion in Russia.
    slydessertfox, Apr 7, 2012
    #23

  4. Leutenant_Germany Active Member

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2011
    Message Count:
    156
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Munich, Bavaria,Germany
    i agree, the Italians joining the Axis was the best thing that happened to the Allies in the whole war
    Leutenant_Germany, Apr 8, 2012
    #24
    slydessertfox likes this.

  5. slydessertfox Total War Branch Head

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    11,853
    Likes Received:
    1,425
    Trophy Points:
    373
    Location:
    Mars
    I believe one of Hitler's generals told him if they fought Italy, they would need 6 divisions to hold them off, if they allied with Italy, they would need 20 divisions to help them.
    slydessertfox, Apr 8, 2012
    #25

  6. Leutenant_Germany Active Member

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2011
    Message Count:
    156
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Munich, Bavaria,Germany
    i can see that, i mean the italians had every advantage in Yugoslavia, Greece, and Egypt and they lost. the only victories they had were in Albania and Ethiopia. Italy quite literally was the soft underbelly of the Axis war machine
    Leutenant_Germany, Apr 8, 2012
    #26
    slydessertfox likes this.

  7. Yarpen Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,541
    Likes Received:
    744
    Trophy Points:
    163
    Location:
    Bs. As.,Argentina
    But you know, fascists bros before marxist and liberals ho's.
    Yarpen, Apr 8, 2012
    #27
    Romulus211, Sparticus 1244, Shisno and 2 others like this.

  8. D3adtrap www.twitter.com/d3adtrap | Mr. Choc: Coco Fruits

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    www.Twitter.com/d3adtrap
    I'm going to go with Battle of Moscow. Despite the fact that Germany was doomed to fail when launching an invasion of Russia (What kind of a idiot does that, I mean c'mon) they were not defeated yet.

    I chose Battle of Moscow for many, many reasons and it was unquestionably the most critical battle of the entire war.

    First off let us asses the situation: Professional Red Army is for the most part gone leaving reserve army standing (not ideal 2ns rate soldiers and so on). On other hand German Wermacht is a shadow of itself. Despite all their victories they are beaten trough and trough. Wermacht of 42 is not nearly as strong or capable as the one before invasion in 41. What this means is that Wermacht has to win this one, because if it does not they're never going to get that far (more on the issue down bellow) I would also like to give you a little note, that in 41 Germany launched an all out offensive with 3 army groups. In 42 they scrapped all their strongest units they had and best equipment to march on Stalingrad. After their failure all they could was launch a single pitiful attack at battle of Kursk. This gives you perspective on how badly damaged they got over the years. Out of 100 000 elite officers that were trained in interwar period -the only men that were allowed to be in Germany army - 1/3 have died in the first year of eastern front . You are never going to replace such experience and such expertise and that was one of the few advantages Germans had over Russians.


    Now let us know how wars are won, there is two methods: Conquer all enemy territory or defeat their will to resist. If you take all territory it does not matter how much one wants to fight, you are in control of resources and your very presens does not allow them to organize. But we're dealing with Russia. Germany's never going to take that collossus. Now how about defeating will to resist? Epic failure as well. They have come there to kill 60% of ethnic Russians and enslave the rest of them, so how about that as a motivation? Also Stalin was in control mode and in other words everyone who even mentioned possibility of defeat was long gone. This is not a war where one simply surrenders and because of this very policy they forced every Russian to fight to the death. Now if every Russian is fighting to the death across the entire colossal nation, Germans are not going to win the war.

    So how important was Moscow? Despite chances of victory being very slim even after capturing the city, it was the only chance they had. Capturing and/or killing Stalin would be priority but that requires them to actually take the city and capturing Stalin both a herculean task considering what they're gone up against.

    After a defeat there was no way they are doing a comeback. They are pushed back and retreating en masse, while Red Army is growing stronger each day. Those thousands of factories, that left in summer western Russia are partly rebuild and their production kicking in. If Germans had such a trouble fighting Russians that were out of supplies and used obsolete gear (they're reserve army, remember?) how the hell can they stand up against a full might of the Red Army? They can't and they did not.

    PS. Props for comprehensive pole, buddy.

    PPS. I'm glad to see that most of you agree with me and I take back my previous "Ps". You did not give option to choose Operation Bagration
    D3adtrap, Apr 8, 2012
    #28
    Leonard likes this.

  9. Augustus Magnas Member

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2012
    Message Count:
    203
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    13
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    The only reason why Operation Barbarossa was even a sucess in the first place was because the Russians were caught off guard and had little time to prepare. However Hitler vastly underestimated the military capiticty of the Soviet Union and failed to properly prepare for a long war with the Soviet Union.
    Augustus Magnas, Apr 8, 2012
    #29

  10. D3adtrap www.twitter.com/d3adtrap | Mr. Choc: Coco Fruits

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    www.Twitter.com/d3adtrap
    He's plan was to knock out USSR before winter, so he was not expecting it.

    PS. It was not a success
    D3adtrap, Apr 8, 2012
    #30

  11. Augustus Magnas Member

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2012
    Message Count:
    203
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    13
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    I meant partial success
    Augustus Magnas, Apr 8, 2012
    #31

  12. yuri2045 A Marines Biologist

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    2,767
    Likes Received:
    328
    Trophy Points:
    148
    Location:
    Curitiba, Brasil
    I'd say Barbarossa was a success, since they held the territory they took from the USSR all the way to Stalingrad, the first major loss of the Wermacht.
    yuri2045, Apr 8, 2012
    #32

  13. D3adtrap www.twitter.com/d3adtrap | Mr. Choc: Coco Fruits

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    www.Twitter.com/d3adtrap
    Which is a year. What a success. Million men died to hold some territory for a year, Hitler would be proud.

    PS. Stalingrad was defeat on titanic scale, so saying it was a major loss is an understatement.
    D3adtrap, Apr 8, 2012
    #33

  14. General Mosh Citystates Founder!

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,310
    Likes Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    193
    Location:
    Scattered to the 4 corners of Earth
    I say either winter '41 or fall '42. I voted fall '42 because if Hitler had managed to take the Caucasus, he could have blitzkrieged right through the middle east and into Africa, saving Africa. At the same time he would be enveloping Moscow and taking it, then forcing the Soviets to sign a humiliating peace treaty. Of course, I don't think I know of anyone who actually wanted the Nazis to win, besides maybe white fascist Germans.
    General Mosh, Apr 8, 2012
    #34

  15. The Shaw Rawnald Gregory Erickson the Second

    Member Since:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,426
    Likes Received:
    1,033
    Trophy Points:
    243
    Location:
    New York
    Hitler's first great tactical error was the invasion of Greece, which postponed Operation Barbarossa.
    The Shaw, Apr 8, 2012
    #35

  16. D3adtrap www.twitter.com/d3adtrap | Mr. Choc: Coco Fruits

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    www.Twitter.com/d3adtrap
    I guess leaving your flank open for attack, destroying all logistics you have is totally cool.

    That is absurd
    D3adtrap, Apr 8, 2012
    #36

  17. The Shaw Rawnald Gregory Erickson the Second

    Member Since:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,426
    Likes Received:
    1,033
    Trophy Points:
    243
    Location:
    New York
    The Greeks only joined the Allies because the Axis attacked them. More importantly, it was Mussolini's war, not Hitler's.
    Hitler's invasion of Russia would have gone more smoothly had he not waited and let his generals lead the army.
    The Shaw, Apr 8, 2012
    #37

  18. D3adtrap www.twitter.com/d3adtrap | Mr. Choc: Coco Fruits

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    www.Twitter.com/d3adtrap
    Many, many problems

    1. He would not get Italian men on eastern front
    2. UK would land in Greece, beat Italians and disrupt German supply lines to the point of them being paralyzed.

    Stay in reality man
    D3adtrap, Apr 8, 2012
    #38

  19. The Shaw Rawnald Gregory Erickson the Second

    Member Since:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,426
    Likes Received:
    1,033
    Trophy Points:
    243
    Location:
    New York
    So maybe it wasn't the German's mistake to invade Greece, but it was the Axis' as a whole to even start a war in Greece.

    Those damn Italians ruin everything.
    The Shaw, Apr 8, 2012
    #39

  20. D3adtrap www.twitter.com/d3adtrap | Mr. Choc: Coco Fruits

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    www.Twitter.com/d3adtrap
    I would argue that it is not that simple, I bet they had a good reason to invade Greece, but I do not know what that would be. I also would argue that delaying Barbarossa had little to no effect in grand events of things.
    D3adtrap, Apr 8, 2012
    #40
Page 2 of 7

Share This Page

Facebook: