New Poll!: Where Germany lost the war.

Where did germany lose?

 

I chose the invasion of Crete. You see, if those german paras where used to take malta then the med. wouldve been a germany lake, with ,malta secure, the Value of gibralter wouldve diminished. Then those german troops couldve invaded southern russia at the onset of barbarossa, sealing a german victory.

CvM

 

I chose the declaration of war on America because that created the second front Germany could not afford to have. Granted, the US would have supplied the Russians and the Brits but as in WWI, the manpower is what took it over the top. I think Germany could have held it's own fighting the Russians and Brits. The Brits could not fight w/o the US. It could only realisitcally carry on an air bombardment campaign but it would not have been effective enough. On the Eastern front, it would have turned into a war of attrition that could have gone either way since the brunt of the German forces would have been there.

 

The defeat of almost 300.000 soldiers of the 6th Army meant that the Allies knew that the Wehrmacht was beatable.

The declaration of America itself wastn't enough to let Germany lose the war. As to say the Amercians were supplying Great Brittain long before 11 december 1941.

 

I do think that failing operation Barbarossa brought Germany to its knees in the end.The situation was not at all expected as well they did not start Operation Total war until february 1943. That was too late!

 

Very good question, and one that must be taken into perspective when answering.

I don't think the Germans lost the war because of Crete!? In fact I beleive that the Germans took the wrong conclusion from Crete. Hitler never used his elite paratroopers in a major event for the rest of the war! I think that Crete showed how successfull airborne infantry was. If you don't believe me, just look at the Allied Airborne forces. These were some of the finest units of the war, and were the toughest ones for the Germans to fight! I think that the Germans should have produced more paratroopers, and used them more often. Sure they took high casulties in Crete, but just look what they accomplished!

The Battle of Britain is arguable. I don't think it neccesarily lost the war for Germany, but it definately ment that England could not be invaded.

The invasion of Russia is another one. I don't think they lost the war from this though. In fact the first 6 months of the invasion saw some of the greatest military victories in history!

I feel they lost the war during the winter assault on Moscow. By taking Moscow the Germans could have thrown the communist from power, and the Russian probably would revolt and start another civil war! Moscow was also the center of all the Russian road and rail systems!
The Germans would then have been able to push east to the Urals, and set up strong defensives along the mountains.
By holding Moscow, the Russians kept thier factories beyond the Urals, and kept control of the road and rail keys of all of Russia. Also Stalin maintained power.
The German failure ment that they now were on the defensive side. Blitzkrieg was not made for defence! The time of Blitzkrieg was over!

Stalingrad and Kursk are both good answers as well, but I don't believe that the Germans could have reversed the war by that time. I think a German victory in either of these battles would have only prolonged the war, not win it.

Normandy definately did not loose the war for the Germans. The Germans were already being pushed back into Poland by June 1944. It only ment that the Western allies would have a claim in Europe. If the Allies failed at Normandy, then Europe would have fallen under the control of the Russians.

One other large battle that you left out was "El Alemien". If Rommel would have won thier, he could have pushed the British right out of Egypt, and captured the Nile! From thier he would have plenty of supplies, and able to push into the oil rich countries of Persia. The British had almost no militaries there to defend! Also this would have given the Germans a new "southern Front" from which to invade Russia!
A very important battle that could have turned the tide!

Matt

 

I voted for Kursk...

regards

 

I voted Barbarossa, but more specifically when Germany turned south into the Ukraine instead of plowing ahead to Moscow in September of 1941. Because they left Moscow unharmed, the Soviets were able to build a significant reserve there by December. Russia was the key to controlling Europe and winning the war, and the Germans lost it down a drainpipe by holding off Typhoon for a few months.

Really though, its hard to name a specific place that Germany 100% lost the war. It would have to be a conglomerate of reasons, with Barbarossa at the forefront.

CvM; I don't think Crete was all that important to the war effort as a whole. It would certainly help North Africa, but seeing as that was more of a sideshow when it comes to the Eastern Front, securing Malta would not have led to a German victory in the war. And the DAK had about 250000 soldiers at most. I dont think thats enough to send into Southern Russia by itself. The Germans would have to divert significant troops from the West or even the East in order to make such a plan feasible, and that would open up exploitable weak spots in the areas troops are drawn from, especially the Russian front.

 

I voted for the BoB. Not fighting it would have (probably) spared British and German cities and (certainly) a few hundred aircraft and their crews. Winning it would have saved so many resources that a victory over the Soviet Union would have been quite possible.

 

Congrats to all the 40% forum members so far who agree together with me that Germany lost WW II with the failure of "Barbarossa" and "Typhoon".

Of course we're right!

Cheers,

 

The war was lost for Germany in an 85% in the Eastern front. And that doesn't mean that the war there could not have been won, maybe not totally, but many things could have been achieved. By not taking Moscow before winter 1941 Germany would lose the war. Debacles as Stalingrad and Kursk just speeded the process.

The Battle of Britain was a reverse, but not a large one. I have always wondered: if there would have not been an Estern front then it was IMPOSSIBLE for the Western Allies to defeat Germany. Imagine that in Normandy there would have been not 40 divisions, but the 160 divisions fighting in the Eastern Front. Retaking Paris? Yeah...

 

Actually had there been no eastern front whatsoever, the Western Allies would have eventually stood a chance. It might have lasted well into the 50's though. But had Germany knocked out USSR, there is no way the Allies could have won. The military/industrial power wielded by a triumphant Germany could have wiped out Britain, and forced the USA to sue for peace. And that doesnt take into account Japan.

 

I hate to admit it but, I also chose Kursk--being that it and Stalingrad both were mentioned and that Kursk happened several months after Stalingrad.

 

The start of Operation Barbarossa wastn't deadly on itself. They had a good change to win it.

But the war was over when they lost 300.000 soldiers at Stalingrad, from then on the Red Army was too strong and it became very difficult to defeat such a large army.

IMHO they lost the war at the moment that Hitler gave orders to attack Stalingrad and the Caucasus at the same time. By dividing his troops he made them both very vulnerable.

 

Not that sure: The U.S:/CW "Rainbow"-plans made sense and half a dozen A-bombs dropped over Berlin in 1945 etc. would have done the rest, I think.

Cheers,

 

I think germany could win war! I voted for barbarossa. Hitler need to win aginst britan and then atack rusia! Becouse operation barbarossa started before england falls. Germany need to fight on 2 fronts

 

Don't count your victories yet! So far Moscow is tied with babarossa!

I think that we'll all agree that the war was lost in the East. The failure of the Germans to take Moscow within the first 6 months led them to a long war of attrition, for which the German Army was not built for! Combine that with the fact that 1.5 million Germans invaded Russian. The Russians had over 15.5 million troops to defend! That's not counter thier many reserves, and civilians (partisans!).

Matt

 

mp38, you hit it on the dot. Germany needed to super-blitz Russia in order to defeat them. Failing to do so led them to eventual defeat, barring signing a peace or creating an a-bomb, neither of which happened. Moscow was the key to Russia, and Russia the key to victory.

 

I totally agree with you. Moscow was the key to victory, and that is why I chose it as the key to defeat as well. The Germans could not win a war of attrition. They needed to knock out Russian within 6 months! As Hitler himself put it, "kick the door in, and the whole rotten thing will collapse". The problem was, it didn't collapse! In fact, by November 1941, the Germans had destroyed or captured more Russian divisions than they thought the Russians even had!!!!??!?!?!

They had grossly under-estimated the size of the Russian army.

Matt

 

Yes, Moscow was the key to victory at that moment had they succeeded in taking malta, mosocw would not have been as important