At what point did German defeat in WW2 become inevitable?

[korn469]

Last night I watched a program on the history channel that delt with the last days of World War 2, and I started wondering at what point did allied victory go from probability to inevitablity. One of segments talked about Hitler reacting to the news of FDR's death shortly before Hitler committed suicide. It described Hitler as overjoyed because he latched onto this occurance as a mircle. He thought this because of the similarity to Czarina dying in Frederick's time, and since Hitler linked himself to Frederick he thought that FDR's death would turn the tide in Germany's favor. However, by that point unless Truman was a Nazi mole with so much charisma that he could persuade the US to declare war on the UK and USSR, Germany had no chance for victory.

So my question is this, at what point does WW2 reach a tipping point where even a sudden ahistorical string of German military victories only slow down the allied advance and eventual victory instead of turning the tide of war in Germany's favor? Make the following assumptions:

1) The allies do not turn on each other without some catastrophy (like a Germany victory shortly after Normandy which causes the US to sue for peace).

2) The allies maintain the stated goal of Germany surrendering unconditionally.

3) Germany doesn't suddenly develop powerful new wonder weapons. So fielding Me-262 squadrons earlier are hypothetical OKs, MIRVed ICBMs tipped with h-bombs in 1943 aren't.

My personal opinion is that Germany's slow initial responce to Operation Overlord was the last nail in Germany's coffin. If somehow the Germans could have counterattacked and pushed UK/US forces back into the sea on or near D-day then the Nazis still had a very slim chance. Though I admit anything after Stalingrad is arguable. Certainly in late 1942 Germany still had a chance. One thing that could have shifted the war slightly in Germany's favor at various points in the War would have been changing their codes. It seems obvious that the Allies had far better intelligence operations throughout the war which certainly aided their cause.

I know many of you here have a great deal of WW2 knowledge, so what do you think?

[:) Smiley]

Trying to conquer the world never works, especially not in the long run; the war was lost when it begun.

[Urban Ranger]

Once US entered the war, and Operation Barbarossa failed to even take Moscow.

[Sandman]

It was Kursk which really tore the heart out of the Wehrmacht.

[Berzerker]

Invading Russia was Germany's downfall, they surrounded themselves with too many pissed off people.

[Asmodean]

Funny that you should post this, I have often wondered the same.

My has always been after Stalingrad, but lately I have begun to wonder if it wasn't actually much later than that.Remember that it took all of 2½ years for the Soviets to drive the Germans back to Berlin, and that it took the combined strength of England, USA, Canada, France, Poland, and a host of other countries to drive them from the Normandy and across the Rhine.

To me, that suggests a fighting will and spirit that, if used properly, could actually have turned the tide - even late in the war. Therefore I have, as of late, begun to define the failed assasination attempt on Hitler in the summer of 1944 as the "real" point of no return. If sane and competent leadership had been allowed to take control of the German war machine at that time, they just might have been able to stop the onslaught. Could they, then, really have turned the tide and win???? It's anybody's guess. I lean towards no.

Asmodean

[Mr. Harley]

The Nazis created their downfall via two steps taken prior to the war. First of all, they rewarded party loyalty over competency. Both Goering and Ribbentrop screwed more things up and hurt the Nazis than anything the Allies did thru 1943. The number of f**k ups the two men did is phenominal. Goering helped prevent the deployment of a German jet by 1940 - here's a link - www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/HEINHE-178.htm. This is one example of many.

Secondly, Hitler had a contempt for scientists and engineers. After the Nazi takeover the number of students in technical programs of this type in Germany was halved! It meant that over the long term Germany was going to lose it's technical supiority.

However, in pursuit of the war the two most critical things are the victory in France and failure to secure the Mediterranean prior to invading the Soviet Union. The rapid victory in France meant that the Wehrmacht did not deal with some deep seated logistical problems, including mechanical unreliability, only second-rate officers going into logistics, etc. They actually had to halt the offensive one third of the way through France to regroup, repair, etc. Nobody then looked at a map of Russia and made the appropriate comparisons. They'd won an outstanding victory. This lack of logistical reform - the Wehrmacht was still largely horse drawn - guaranteed their getting mired down by the distances involved while invading the Soviet Union.

Failure to secure the Mediterranean meant that England got to keep it's oil supplies secure. A loss of Egypt would have given Germany the Middle East and access to those oil supplies. It would have meant all British oil would have to be shipped from the United States or South America (I am discounting Indonesia), making it more vulnerable to U-boats. However, Hitler was obsessed with Lebenstraum or living space, not resources though he did want the Soviet oil. So invaded the Soviet Union prematurely.

[techumseh]

Stalingrad.

[Bosh]

When Germany decided not to be nice to the slavs in the territory they were grabbing during Operation Barbarossa. If the Germans played their card right they could've been greeted as liberators (esp. in the Ukraine) instead of having to deal with partisans etc. etc. etc. The Germans seemed to do everything they could to strengthen the Russian will to resist.

[Mr. Harley]

Boshko - I used to take this attitude. However, it's one of those impossible historical scenarios. The ideology of the Nazis made that outcome impossible. They could no more treat the slavs like humans than the Japanese could have engaged in an enlightened occupation of Korea or China.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
However, Hitler was obsessed with Lebenstraum or living space, not resources though he did want the Soviet oil. So invaded the Soviet Union prematurely.

Some point out that the victories the Nazis had during the opening stage of Barbarossa - large pincer movements creating huge pockets of Soviet troops - indicate that the Soviets were deploying to attack, thus they lacked depth. If this is true, that means the Germans would have suffered a similar fate - probably not to such a scale - if they had waited.

Also don't forget that Barbarossa was launched at the point where Soviet military was at its lowest point. If the Nazis did not attack they would have to wait until May or at least April the following year.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asmodean
My has always been after Stalingrad, but lately I have begun to wonder if it wasn't actually much later than that.Remember that it took all of 2½ years for the Soviets to drive the Germans back to Berlin

Once the Soviets got on the offensive though German defeat was inevitable.

[Tattila the Hun]

3rd of March, 1945.

[BeBMan]

30 Jan 1933

[Alexander's Horse]

The war was lost in the spring of 1942 when stupid Hitler, "the greatest military genius of all time" as Goebbels was styling him at the time, decided to invade the Caucasus to get the oil wells instead of doing what his generals urged and finishing off the Russian army in the summer of 42 by drawing them into a giant cauldron battle for Moscow.

It was all downhill from that point.