When did German failure become virtually certain in WW2?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:42:07 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  When did German failure become virtually certain in WW2?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: ?
#1
Sept 3, 1939 (France and Britain Declare War on Germany)
 
#2
June 4, 1940 (Dunkirk evacuations succeed)
 
#3
October 23, 1940 (Spain doesn’t join Axis)
 
#4
October 31, 1940 (Germany significantly cuts back bombing of UK due to losses)
 
#5
November-December 1940 (Soviet-Axis talks stall, USSR doesn’t join Axis)
 
#6
March 11, 1941 (USA approves Lend-Lease to European Allies)
 
#7
June 22, 1941 (Germany invades USSR)
 
#8
January  7th, 1942 (Barbarossa fails, Germany can’t reach Moscow)
 
#9
December 11th, 1941 (USA declares war on Germany)
 
#10
February 2, 1943 (Germany loses Battle of Stalingrad)
 
#11
July 25, 1943 (Germany diverts units to occupy Italy)
 
#12
August 23, 1943 (Germany loses Battle of Kursk)
 
#13
January 27, 1944 (Germany withdraws from Leningrad)
 
#14
June 6, 1944 (D-Day landings)
 
#15
January 25th, 1945 (Allies win Battle of Bulge)
 
#16
May 8th, 1945 (Germany finally surrenders)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 51

Author Topic: When did German failure become virtually certain in WW2?  (Read 2222 times)
PSOL
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,981


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 08, 2022, 10:08:07 PM »

^^^ Moreso I was referring to the death of Ernst Röhm, who wanted to reform the army to make it more efficient. By the end of the war the Nazis were pretty regretful of not going with these reforms.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 13, 2022, 05:37:01 PM »

Probably when it invaded the USSR. I'm not gonna do the meme and say it's impossible to invade Russia, but trying to invade Russia while pursuing a grinding war with a US-armed Britain (and the increasing likelihood that the US was going to intervene eventually, was always going to be a recipe for disaster. Hitler's best bet was always going to be to wait out the UK until they broke and negotiated a separate peace. Then if he really wanted to stick it to Stalin he should probably have waited at least a few years to consolidate his hold over continental Europe and rebuild his strength. Of course even then it would have been a tall order, but at least he wouldn't have forced himself into the situation that even the Kaiserreich was desperately trying to avoid in 1914.

Thank goodness for evil's self-defeating nature.

I mean invading the USSR though was the entire goal of the war to begin with , not defeating the UK . So I don’t get the what ifs behind what if the Nazis didn’t invade the USSR because in that case they would not be Nazis to begin with .

good thing I said this then

He couldn't wait though, for economic reasons. He needed the resources of the Soviet Union and he needed their oil.

He also couldn't really defeat England during any reasonable amount of time that he might have waited.

Its a similar dynamic that Napoleon found himself in. He couldn't defeat England directly, Russia couldn't afford to not trade with England and Napoleon couldn't defeat England without adherence to the continental system.
Logged
Georg Ebner
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 408
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 15, 2022, 08:41:14 AM »

Since ~1700.
The appearance of impressing continentalEuropeans like Prince EUGEN de Savoy, FREDERIC II, MIRABEAU, NAPOLEON, TALLEYRAND, METTERNICH, GARIBALDI, BISMARCK, WILLIAM II aso. overshadowed, that the decisive forces were increasingly England/US and Russia/SU. A development for not less than 300 years, culminating 1945ff. and ending only in the very recent past.
Logged
PSOL
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,981


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 15, 2022, 02:05:28 PM »

Since ~1700.
The appearance of impressing continentalEuropeans like Prince EUGEN de Savoy, FREDERIC II, MIRABEAU, NAPOLEON, TALLEYRAND, METTERNICH, GARIBALDI, BISMARCK, WILLIAM II aso. overshadowed, that the decisive forces were increasingly England/US and Russia/SU. A development for not less than 300 years, culminating 1945ff. and ending only in the very recent past.
Victory for England was only certain from 1815. Before then it was a tug of war between England, France, and Spain with no clear leading European power.
Logged
Georg Ebner
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 408
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 15, 2022, 03:40:16 PM »

Since ~1700.
The appearance of impressing continentalEuropeans like Prince EUGEN de Savoy, FREDERIC II, MIRABEAU, NAPOLEON, TALLEYRAND, METTERNICH, GARIBALDI, BISMARCK, WILLIAM II aso. overshadowed, that the decisive forces were increasingly England/US and Russia/SU. A development for not less than 300 years, culminating 1945ff. and ending only in the very recent past.
Victory for England was only certain from 1815. Before then it was a tug of war between England, France, and Spain with no clear leading European power.
Even, if we saw it as the fights of soulless apeHerds, there would remain the fact, that EngLand ousted Spain&France in the colonies and erected its Empire - what do some victories or defeats on the continent count against that?!
Even more so, if we see it as the fights of human beings with ideas. (And even an amateur should be able to detect, that the antAgonism US-SU was based on distinct worldViews. Whose roots go back to 1700 [and earlier]).
The great P.HAZARD described well, how EngLand took over the leadership, first in philoSophy ("Locke-era") - MONTESQUIEU & VOLTAIRE learnt there -, then in manners (GAINSBOROUGH-aristoCrats!), finally in politics&economy. The XVIIIth was EngLand's siglo del oro.
Logged
PSOL
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,981


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 15, 2022, 05:53:48 PM »

Since ~1700.
The appearance of impressing continentalEuropeans like Prince EUGEN de Savoy, FREDERIC II, MIRABEAU, NAPOLEON, TALLEYRAND, METTERNICH, GARIBALDI, BISMARCK, WILLIAM II aso. overshadowed, that the decisive forces were increasingly England/US and Russia/SU. A development for not less than 300 years, culminating 1945ff. and ending only in the very recent past.
Victory for England was only certain from 1815. Before then it was a tug of war between England, France, and Spain with no clear leading European power.
Even, if we saw it as the fights of soulless apeHerds, there would remain the fact, that EngLand ousted Spain&France in the colonies and erected its Empire - what do some victories or defeats on the continent count against that?!
Even more so, if we see it as the fights of human beings with ideas. (And even an amateur should be able to detect, that the antAgonism US-SU was based on distinct worldViews. Whose roots go back to 1700 [and earlier]).
The great P.HAZARD described well, how EngLand took over the leadership, first in philoSophy ("Locke-era") - MONTESQUIEU & VOLTAIRE learnt there -, then in manners (GAINSBOROUGH-aristoCrats!), finally in politics&economy. The XVIIIth was EngLand's siglo del oro.
Spain’s holdings were much better and provided a higher ROI compared to the meager Caribbean island chains, the 13 colonies, and Canada. France had a much better geospatial position and prevented Hapsburg or English agendas all up till the late 1770s.

The notion that England provided good philosophical takes compared to the might and relevance of the Germanic—or even one man, Goethe— states or France is incorrect, and no stint in England by Voltaire is gonna change that
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 15, 2022, 07:04:17 PM »

Probably when it invaded the USSR. I'm not gonna do the meme and say it's impossible to invade Russia, but trying to invade Russia while pursuing a grinding war with a US-armed Britain (and the increasing likelihood that the US was going to intervene eventually, was always going to be a recipe for disaster. Hitler's best bet was always going to be to wait out the UK until they broke and negotiated a separate peace. Then if he really wanted to stick it to Stalin he should probably have waited at least a few years to consolidate his hold over continental Europe and rebuild his strength. Of course even then it would have been a tall order, but at least he wouldn't have forced himself into the situation that even the Kaiserreich was desperately trying to avoid in 1914.

Thank goodness for evil's self-defeating nature.

I mean invading the USSR though was the entire goal of the war to begin with , not defeating the UK . So I don’t get the what ifs behind what if the Nazis didn’t invade the USSR because in that case they would not be Nazis to begin with .

good thing I said this then

The USSR will grow exponentially more powerful than Germany with every year Germany delays it's invasion. The big military reforms will be complete in 1942. Part of the reason for invading in 1941 was if they wait too long they miss their window.

Also by 1941 Germany isn't fighting a "grinding" war with the UK. The issue in the West is settled (UK can't hope to invade Europe proper in any reasonable time frame) and there is only a secondary theater in the Mediterranean.

Bringing the USA into the war was probably the single biggest unforced error made by the Germans overall.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,348


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 15, 2022, 08:43:30 PM »

Probably when it invaded the USSR. I'm not gonna do the meme and say it's impossible to invade Russia, but trying to invade Russia while pursuing a grinding war with a US-armed Britain (and the increasing likelihood that the US was going to intervene eventually, was always going to be a recipe for disaster. Hitler's best bet was always going to be to wait out the UK until they broke and negotiated a separate peace. Then if he really wanted to stick it to Stalin he should probably have waited at least a few years to consolidate his hold over continental Europe and rebuild his strength. Of course even then it would have been a tall order, but at least he wouldn't have forced himself into the situation that even the Kaiserreich was desperately trying to avoid in 1914.

Thank goodness for evil's self-defeating nature.

I mean invading the USSR though was the entire goal of the war to begin with , not defeating the UK . So I don’t get the what ifs behind what if the Nazis didn’t invade the USSR because in that case they would not be Nazis to begin with .

good thing I said this then

The USSR will grow exponentially more powerful than Germany with every year Germany delays it's invasion. The big military reforms will be complete in 1942. Part of the reason for invading in 1941 was if they wait too long they miss their window.

Also by 1941 Germany isn't fighting a "grinding" war with the UK. The issue in the West is settled (UK can't hope to invade Europe proper in any reasonable time frame) and there is only a secondary theater in the Mediterranean.

Bringing the USA into the war was probably the single biggest unforced error made by the Germans overall.

Yah the main reason for the Western Front was to avoid a two front war like WW1 when they moved towards the real goal of the War and that was to invade the USSR. It is why I don't think you can compare Napoleon's Invasion to Hitler's Invasion as Napoleon's primary enemy was the British while Hitler's was the Soviet Union.

So for Napoleon invading Russia was a huge mistake as that was a huge diversion from his main goal of the war which was defeating the British while for Hitler it was the main reason for the war to begin with.


Logged
Georg Ebner
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 408
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 16, 2022, 06:25:20 AM »

Since ~1700.
The appearance of impressing continentalEuropeans like Prince EUGEN de Savoy, FREDERIC II, MIRABEAU, NAPOLEON, TALLEYRAND, METTERNICH, GARIBALDI, BISMARCK, WILLIAM II aso. overshadowed, that the decisive forces were increasingly England/US and Russia/SU. A development for not less than 300 years, culminating 1945ff. and ending only in the very recent past.
Victory for England was only certain from 1815. Before then it was a tug of war between England, France, and Spain with no clear leading European power.
Even, if we saw it as the fights of soulless apeHerds, there would remain the fact, that EngLand ousted Spain&France in the colonies and erected its Empire - what do some victories or defeats on the continent count against that?!
Even more so, if we see it as the fights of human beings with ideas. (And even an amateur should be able to detect, that the antAgonism US-SU was based on distinct worldViews. Whose roots go back to 1700 [and earlier]).
The great P.HAZARD described well, how EngLand took over the leadership, first in philoSophy ("Locke-era") - MONTESQUIEU & VOLTAIRE learnt there -, then in manners (GAINSBOROUGH-aristoCrats!), finally in politics&economy. The XVIIIth was EngLand's siglo del oro.
Spain’s holdings were much better and provided a higher ROI compared to the meager Caribbean island chains, the 13 colonies, and Canada. France had a much better geospatial position and prevented Hapsburg or English agendas all up till the late 1770s.

The notion that England provided good philosophical takes compared to the might and relevance of the Germanic—or even one man, Goethe— states or France is incorrect, and no stint in England by Voltaire is gonna change that
No idea, what "ROI" is supposed to mean - "revenues of island"?
Spain's siglo del oro ended roughly 1659, also politically. The French colonial experiments were always halfhearted and with the loss of NorthAmerica over (at least before taking IndoChina & Maghreb in the late XIXth).
You forgot to mention the decisive part of their Empire - India -, which was conquered in exactly those days.

KANT was freed by HUME, GOETHE&HERDER by SHAKESPEARE, german Romanticism by Scottish Ossianism.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,521
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 18, 2022, 05:09:27 PM »

When the US joined the Allies while the Soviet Union was still standing.
Logged
compson
austerlitz1805
Newbie
*
Posts: 9
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 25, 2022, 12:52:19 AM »

No later than Pearl Harbor, that's for sure (I take it for granted U.S. would've declared war on Germany even if Germany had not done so first). Quite simply, by 1943 U.S. armaments production was outpacing every other country in the war (Axis and Allied) combined. With all due respect to the Greatest Generation, it was an unlosable war.

The question is when did U.S. involvement become inevitable, which is a question of domestic politics chiefly but also contingent on Germany military strategy. I'm not sure if Roosevelt could've finagled us into the war without Pearl Harbor, although Admiral Raeder was chomping at the bit to begin submarine warfare against the U.S. all throughout 1941.

If the U.S. doesn't enter the war, do they still sustain arms supplies to the extent needed by the UK (and more importantly) the Soviets? If so, the Soviets reclaim their losses and the UK achieves a favorable settlement.

Without lend lease, I would say Germany would've been favored to force the Soviets into capitulation (Brest-Litovsk on steroids), along with an ignominious peace for the UK. 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.041 seconds with 14 queries.