What one moment most led to Germany's Defeat?

a. Faliure to destroy the Allies at Duunkirk
b. Losing the Battle of Britian
c. Attacking Russia (Operation Barbarossa

Which one would you pick?

 

You missed off declaring war on the USA

 

attacking Russia and then the way they implemented it

They were never going to win a war on 3 fronts and had they either won or stabilised the eastern border by 44 the allies would have a much harder time in attacking France.

Furthermore the war in africa was ignored then lost due to hitler being preoccupied with Russia

FNG

 

But that was Japan that attacked pearl harbour and USA entered the war after that.

 

Germany declared war on the USA on 9th December 1941 (IIRC). If they had not, the situation would have been "interesting" -- how could Roosevelt have got a declaration against Germany.

 

Actually in a book I read it has a quote from Stalin from a speach made in May 1941 to high officials that they would be ready for war against Germany in a couple on months.

 

It started with Duunkirk (never heard of the place )
BoB made it worse
Russia decided the whole thing

if you ask me

 

but how come after all the purges ins his armed forces?
his troops did not have the proper training or leadership, this was shown during the initial stages of barbarrosa, from mass surrender to stubborn resistance,but futile.
we even heard of plans by stalin on invading eurpoe, but the barbarrosa showed the opposite, he was not ready to mount a big scale invasion, due lack of leadership, proper supply and a decent air force

 

If Russia was beaten I think the Allies still would've won. There was no way for Germany to beat the US & British navies (which would've been needed to cross the Atlantic) And unlike the Pacific the axis couldn't hop islands to get the US they would have to go the entire way across the Atlantic's (they could go to S. America, but the German economy couldn't stand the pressure as the American economy. Then when they got to the US they couldn't get to Americas industry fast enough. Then if they did beat the East cost they would have to butcher there way across the Midwest (which every real American family should have a gun).

Even if they beat they would have to cross the Rockie Mts. (anther great factor)

so In fact America can never be beaten in a conventional war. (I mean completely destroyed) by any European country. I am not dissing the Europeans, im just saying American Population and Industry are to big. (unless all of Europe became 1 unified country, but theres to many differences).

Notice I said European, not Asian. (A.K.A. China, but then again if America would stop buying from China then Chinas economy would crash)

The only way I could think of destroying America threw conventianal war-fare is coming from the undefended Canadian border and move quick and take out the NE states. Also make sure you dont face the Military on any battlefield.

you might take this as American ignorance,(but then again I take most Europeans as European Ignorance) unless you can point out a way that I have'nt thought of you can post it.


Point out what you disagree with. I might have to make anther topic because this sways away from the orignal topic.

 

Which one moment... Overall probably the Reichstag fire.


Out of the three given, probably Barbarossa.

 

it was all the battle of Stalingrad. that was germanys main defeat

 

Civilians with guns are rarely a match for a professional army... Waging a successful war is more about discipline, cohesion and order, not who has more guns...

Frankly, I agree that America had the industrial capability to eventually defeat Germany all by themselves... However, I highly doubt that they were willing to suffer the human losses involved in such a war... If Russia was beaten I think America and Britain would've settled for peace... Rather than face 100% of the German army, as opposed to the 10% which they did in fact face... Given their reluctance to enter into the war I highly doubt that they were willing to lose millions of men in a faraway war which had no immediate effect on their homeland... Like you said, Germany could not attack America, they lacked the resources and naval technology to do so... Why then should America loose millions of lives when there was no immediate threat? Britain too had proven she could hold out on her own, but she could never hope to invade Europe by herself... The war on Japan would still have been fought, but not Europe... If Russia surrendered, the allies would be facing such high odds that enormous losses would be inevitable, and victory would not be certain... It would not have been unlikey for America and Britain to try for peace

 

These events are all pretty related. The question is comparable to asking which Ally did most to ensure the German defeat; there's no way to single out just one country, because the key to victory was cooperation. No country could have pulled it off all by itself. Even Britain, hailed frequently as the lonely fighter against Fascism and National Socialism in 1940-41, relied heavily on its commonwealth.

The escape from Dunkirk gave the British hope of being able to defend themselves, hope which was made solid by the victory during the Battle of Britain, but this merely put a stop to the German advance, it did not set them back in any way. The Battle of Britain was then replaced by the Blitz, which in turn was aborted when planes were required in the East.

Russia could very probably not have performed as well as it did without help from resilient Britain and the US and others that supplied Russia through Britain (among other paths).

 

I would pick operation Barbarossa.There Hitler was forced to use much of his armored and mechanized forces so no free armor forces was left for Rommel and this prevent Africian campaign from beign succesfull. There is no doubt that without eastern front the Africian campaign would have been won and landing in Western Europe would be unsuccesfull due to the powerfull german air and panzer formations avilable as strategical reserves for OKW.

 

Don't think Barbarossa was a mistake in the sense that once Hitler was in power, it was inevitable.

He laid it all out in Mien Kampf in 1924.

The problem was probably much deeper then Hitler listing to his Generals, or taking Moscow or not,[or the myriad of other so called Hitler mistakes once the war started,] the problem was the lead up to the war.

Industrial war potential and not just the quality of the military forces determined the outcome. The Nazis forgot that economic potential had to be activated.

And the whole Nazi regime was more or less built on Corrupt and rotten foundations.


Class and party corruption and Bureaucratic infighting was rampant in Germany, and branches of the military fought against each other, key Nazi leaders like Goering tried to maximize their controls over industry to gain more power and wealth at the expense of centralised production. [Besides being Luftwaffe leader, and later Reichsmarschall, Goering was responsible for the economy as well as the build-up of the German military in preparation for the war, he admitted he knew nothing about economics.]

Hitler wasn't sure how far he could push the population and wanted to keep the "normal" German daily life going, and was no where near ''total war''thinking like Britain and the Soviets until later in the war.

Germany production was way behind even Britain and Russia [even after most of White Russia was over run] not to mention the U.S.
The Nazis did not really understand what total war meant until Speer organised things and by then it was too late, nor did they initially have a real strategic aim.

Probably the only thing that could defeat the Soviets were.... the Soviets themselves. If they gave up the will to fight, the Germans win. If they continue to fight for the liberation of their homeland, the Germans lose. Probably as simple as that.

 

I believe one of the worst things to happen to Hitler was not winning the North Atlantic.

 

They lost it as soon as Hitler started meddling in operations, which were better left to qualified generals.

 

.

it was at a graduation ceremony speech made at a military academy , of course he was pumping them up .

the same week he made a speech saying he needed two years for the USSR to get ready ,

What stalin said was less important that what he didn't !
What stalin said he would do was less important that what he did !
He kissed people on the lips the same day he was putting their names on a list .:-?

Hello Anzac ,
yes for hitler failing to activate germany fully , this is often brought up as the fundamental reason for Barbarossa failing and rightly too !

in hitler mind the campaign would be over after the borders battles , a bit of mop up then on to moscow , up to the arkangeslk astrakan line .
since he was not keen to feed the russian cities , there was a openly discussed plan to starve millions to death , taking moscow or leningrad would be nice but not nescesary , hitler only wanted the mines and wheat fields

the nazi might have been rotten morally but they were smelling like rose compared to stalin politburo ,
the big surprise was that the soviet stalinist system was perfectly suited to a total war of extermination ,and stalin himself was an excellent manager ,
tough not so hot a strategist , but he had plenty of those


.

 

Although if he had left it to the qualified generals at the start they would not have had such dashing victories. Odd really, that a mixture of luck and good timing convinced Hitler that he was a master strategist, and thus he refused to let the professionals take over when necessary.

 

Well put Ricky.