Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

When did Germany lose the war?

Discussion in 'WWII General' started by David Scott, Sep 30, 2011.

  1. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    sad double post form for some reason. Erased by myself.
     
  2. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    460
    Show off
     
  3. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    460
    I too am of this opinion.

    Almost sounds as if Hitler was facing the Soviet Generals; in reality not the case. The German leadership had far more flexibility in the East in 41-42 than the Soviet leadership had (who were in fact in the back seat of Stalin's war). IMO these roles only began to shift in late 42', when the man of steel realized that his generals were in fact quite competent. To use Hitler as an excuse but not include Stalin in Russia's defeats early on is a mistake and an elemantary one. Also, if Hitler is to blame for all which occurred in Russia, shouldnt he be credited with conquering Western Europe? A thought: "If all went well then, surely the Fuhrer knows what he is doing now?" There is the paradox it would seem... :)
     
  4. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    IMHO,to much importance is being given (still today) on Fall Blau,as if nothing happened on the east front,outside Fall Blau:in july and august,AGN lost 42000 men,AGC:76000,AGS :80000.
    About the Red Army:4.6 million Soviet Soldiers blocked on 1 december 1941 some 2.8 million Germans, and,on 1 november 1942,there were 6.8 million Russians facing 2.8 million Germans.
    In 1941,the Soviets committed 9 million men against 3.6 milion Germans,in 1942,it was 13.2 million against 4 million (reserve forces not included)
    And,it was the same for :(figures for the Soviet Army)
    artillery:1 december 1941:19000,1 november 1942:36000
    tanks: 1958 against 8504
    combat aircraft:4290 against 9585
    Thus,ignoring the existence of a Red Army that was stronger in 1942 than in 1941,is to become suspected of being someone who is attempting to explain the German defeat by blunders of Hitler,of being suspected to be someone of whom the Point of View is that the average German soldier was superior to the average Soviet soldier .And,I am doubting that even Hitler believed his propaganda .
     
  5. Colonel FOG

    Colonel FOG Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2011
    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    22
    I'll go with the premature initiation of Operation Barbarossa as arguably the worst strategic error. An astute military commander would never have opened a THIRD front (England, North Africa, and then Russia) prior to defeating England. This is what happens when you put a fanatical politician in charge over the military. If the resources were all he was after, Hitler would have been better off invading Russia from the Balkans at a later date, after beefing up his southern regions, befriending the Turks, trapping the Brits in a pincer in Egypt, and drawing the soon-to-be Russian enemy away from his borders, therefore expending their resources in a more equal fashion when he attacked. Instead, he chose to dive headfirst into a pit of quicksand.
     
  6. Radar4077

    Radar4077 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    45
    They lost the war when they messed with the Americans >:)

    Ego aside, I think they lost the war when they launched the attack in Stalingrad. Perhaps if they were a tad bit prepared with the right clothing and all, but I still don't think they'd win against the Russians defending their homes.
     
  7. fuser

    fuser Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    4
    Are you claiming that German Generals were against the Barbarossa??

    Oh yes you are but then you are wrong. No German military commander opposed Barbarossa before 41 but only after 45.:eek:

    The more delay only means more stronger soviet union

    How??

    Another wet dream. Germans were hard pressed in supplying the nominal AfrikaKorps only add to that more divisions specially Panzers one and you are making Germany more weaker in Africa.


    Then in 41 there wasn't really a second front which mattered much. They gave everything to barbarossa but failed because of soviet resistance. Period.

    Stalingrad is grossly overrated. Were they(Germans) winning the war before it?? Please see this thread "The myths of WWII (Eastern Front)"



    Lastly Germans were not super soldiers and it wasn't one man's fault, it has never been.

    Now, it really gets annoying how people will start explaining ww2 and will take only German army in consideration as if British army in Africa or Red Army in east didn't existed. Seriously people give up, Germany wasn't going to win WW2.
     
  8. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    About invading Russia from the Balkans :there was an AGS who attacked from Rumania (and,if I am not wrong,Rumania is situated in the Balkans)
     
  9. Neutral

    Neutral Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Germans lost the war when George Bushes grandfather and co stopped supporting them
     
  10. scrounger

    scrounger Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2011
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    12
    Hello again; What about the German army's failure at Kursk? It was I believe The last large scale German offensive on the eastern front , after this they could only retreat against the Soviets. Also although not the only factor but an important one none the less, How about May 1943 the turning point in the Battle of the Atlantic it was according to Churchill the thing which frightened him the most. Without victory in the Atlantic D-Day in 1944 would have been impossible...
     
  11. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Ironically, it was on this date; October 3rd of 1941 that Adolf Hitler declared in a speech in Berlin that Russia had been "broken" and would "never rise again." I guess his ability to predict the future was about as well honed as his military skill as a Commander in Chief!
     
  12. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    Any one who has studied Kursk,knows that its importance was absolutely not important :cool:
    About the Battle of the Atlantic,the conclusion of experts is that there never was a turning point in may 1943,because the UBoats never had any chance to starve Britain .
     
  13. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    Do you really believe your conspiracy stories ?
     
  14. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    He is referring to the Harrimans financial structure, Prescott Bush, and their involvement in Wall Street financing of Hitler and the Nazis pre-war.


    Goto:


    Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Antony C. Sutton

    These are established facts, not conspiracy theories. The loss of Wall Street money was a "blow" to the Nazi party coffers, but since they weren't out of the picture until 1942, and their funds weren't seized until then probably less important to the eventual collapse than other factors. If you cull through that online book you will discover that On Oct. 28, 1942, the government issued orders seizing two Nazi front organizations run by the Bush-Harriman bank: the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation. Nazi interests in the Silesian-American Corporation, long managed by Prescott Bush and his father-in-law George Herbert Walker, were also seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act on Nov. 17, 1942. In this action, the government announced that it was seizing only the Nazi interests, leaving the U.S. partners to carry on the business.

    These and other actions taken by the U.S. government in wartime were, too little and too late. Prescott Bush's family had already played a central role in financing and arming Adolf Hitler for his takeover of Germany; in financing and managing the buildup of Nazi war industries for the conquest of Europe and war (eventually) against the U.S.A., as well as assisting in the development of the Nazi regime. Both the Bush and Thyssen families came out of this business with their wealth secure.


    In October 1942, ten months after entering World War II, America was preparing its first assault against Nazi military forces, Prescott Bush was the managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman. And his 18-year-old son George, a future U.S. President, had just begun training to become a naval pilot. On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City which were being run by Prescott Bush. (See the New York City Directory of Directors [available at the Library of Congress]. The volumes for the 1930s and 1940s list Prescott S. Bush as a director of Union Banking Corporation for the years 1934 through 1943.) Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the government took over the Union Banking Corporation, in which Bush was senior director. The Union Banking Corporation was established formally in 1924, as a unit of the Manhattan offices of W.A. Harriman & Co., interlocking with the Thyssen-owned Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart (BHS) in the Netherlands. The American investigators concluded that "the Union Banking Corporation has since its inception handled funds chiefly supplied to it through the Dutch bank by the Thyssen interests for American re-investment." The U.S. Alien Property Custodian seized Union Banking Corp.'s stock shares, all of which were owned by Prescott Bush, E. Roland (Bunny) Harriman, three Nazi executives, and two other associates of Bush. The order seizing the bank, "vests (seizes) all of the capital stock of Union Banking Corporation, a New York corporation". And names the holders of UBC’s shares as:


    "E. Roland Harriman--3991 shares '' [chairman and director of Union Banking Corp. (UBC); this is "Bunny'' Harriman, described by Prescott Bush as a place holder who didn't get into banking affairs; Prescott also managed "Bunny’s" personal investments]


    "Cornelis Lievense--4 shares" [president and director of UBC; New York resident banking functionary for the Nazis]


    "Harold D. Pennington--1 share" [treasurer and director of UBC; an office manager employed by Bush at Brown Brothers Harriman]


    "Ray Morris--1 share '' [director of UBC; partner of Bush and the Harrimans]


    "Prescott S. Bush--1 share'' [director of UBC, which was co-founded and sponsored by his father-in-law George Walker; senior managing partner for E. Roland Harriman and Averell Harriman]


    "H.J. Kouwenhoven--1 share'' [director of UBC; organized UBC as the emissary of Fritz Thyssen in negotiations with George Walker and Averell Harriman; managing director of UBC's Netherlands affiliate under Nazi occupation; industrial executive in Nazi Germany; director and chief foreign financial executive of the German Steel Trust]

    These are not theories, but facts supported by documentation.
     
  15. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    All we have is that P.Bush had ONE share in the UBC bank.
    All the activities of the bank before 11 december 1941 were legal .
    I also like to mention that on 1 september 1939,Thyssen had broken with the Nazis and had left Germany .
     
  16. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    I never said there was anything "illegal" involved pre-Dec. 11th, except maybe that the funds weren't seized until ten months into 1942 when we were at war with Germany. And note that P. Bush was "Bunny Harriman's financial manager, and Harriman was the major US stockholder, Prescott had more than simply a "one share" influence on this situation. BTW, I always found it interesting that post-war when Thyssen was being interogatted, they would ask him if he "had accounts in bank blah, blah, blah?" and he could honestly answer "no". They didn't ask him if he owned the banks, which he did. And while he had broken with Hitler, his company IG Farben continued to work with the Third Reich right to the end.
     
  17. David Scott

    David Scott Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    6
    To all:

    The thrust of this thread seems to have evolved from its question posed to a discussion as to the wisdom of the German Summer 1942 offensive which culminated in the disaster at Stalingrad and Hitler’s culpability in its failure.

    Lt. Commander Robbins, whose paper for the Naval War College I cited and linked to, does not argue that even if Case Blue had been flawlessly executed, it would have achieved its (as nebulous as they were) objectives. He asserts he doesn’t know the answer to that and neither do I. My entire point in venturing into what proved to be a prolonged digression was that the mere fact that the Germans were capable of launching such a powerful offensive in 1942 indicates that they were not finished in 1941 after their failure to take Moscow and their subsequent retreat in the wake of Zukov’s powerful counterattack.

    I further argue that at the very least, they could have taken a defensive posture, defending positions and captured cities in a reverse-Moscow scenario, that would have likely proven to have been beyond the capacity of the Soviets to overcome without suffering unbearable losses. I believe the resulting stalemate would have resulted in a truce in time for Hitler to stabilize the Northern African situation, perhaps making the subsequent Torch landings untenable. (Even if no truce came in time, by taking a defensive posture the Germans quite likely would have been able to transfer a significant amount of troops and machinery from the Eastern front.)

    Had the Germans been able to prevent Torch, then what would have subsequently happened is too problematic to discuss intelligently. I suppose one could argue that if the war lingered on that long (and I am assuming here that Hitler would not agree to give up his conquests in Europe (save those in the Soviet Union he would have had to in order to get a truce from Stalin)), then when America developed the atomic bomb all would have been over for Germany as soon as the United States could build a sufficient quantity of them.

    Hitler talked incessantly of “secret” and “wonder” weapons. But in the end, there was only one such weapon that mattered, that would prove decisive and has colored our world ever since. The Germans were not en route to that weapon. .
     
    Colonel FOG and brndirt1 like this.
  18. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    Sutton is a fool who has witten the following nonsens in the preface of "America's Secret Establishment":The US educational system is based on a statist Hegelian philosophy,the source of both Nazism and Marxism,and has infected and corrupted our constitutional republic .
    There are specialised institutions for such persons .
    I also have to see any proofs that the Bush family was giving money to the nazis .
    Last point,about the Vereinigte Stahlwerke:they were nationalized by the Naziregime,when Thyssen escaped from Germany,thus,Thyssen was not responsible for what the VS were doing during the war .
     
  19. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    There is no possibility that a defensive strategy would have aided the Germans:they already were in a defensive position in 1942,transferring troops from the eastern front would accelerate the catastrophe,the force comparison was already very bad ,worse than in 1941,and it would become even worse .
    And,why mentioning Torch ?There was no possibility for the Germans to prevent Torch,and,the importance of Torch was much exagerated .
     
  20. fuser

    fuser Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    4
    You are wrong here. Hegelian philosophy has nothing to do with Nazism. Bringing up a conspiracy while debunking another conspiracy.;)

    And beside Marxism is surely influenced by Hegel but its not the source.

    Marxism has many sources, there were many socialist thoughts traveling around the world at that time.


    Then its completely off topic. May be I shouldn't had posted this here but meh can't stop my self when Hegelianism was equated with Nazism.
     

Share This Page