At what point did German defeat in WW2 become inevitable?

[GePap]

December 1941, when the Germans both declared war on the US AND had their forces in the USSR turned back, ending their best chance to take Moscow.

[David Floyd]

Interesting question. I think it is obvious that once the US joined the war, German defeat was inevitable, due to the onset of the atomic bomb. Even given German "superweapons", and even allowing Germany to conquer the Soviet Union and the UK, the US still would have utterly destroyed Germany in 1948-1949, using hundreds of atomic weapons dropped from B-36s based in the continental US.

One can easily argue that the Germans could have turned back Overlord, or even beaten the Soviets, but once the US entered the war, there is no way that the Germans could have ultimately prevailed.

The short answer to your question, then, is that the true turning point was the date of the US entry into the war.

[Dis]

Originally posted by GePap
December 1941, when the Germans both declared war on the US AND had their forces in the USSR turned back, ending their best chance to take Moscow.

naw late imho. battle of britain clinched it. so many wasted resource on what?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Can you possibly imagine the utter wrongness of that? Imagine the "Macarena" sung with a thick Scottish brogue.....OCK! MACKARRRENA!

You can hear that every Friday night on the streets of Edinburgh and Glasgow.

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Yeah, but then Wellington would have nearly conquered the continent of Europe save for Napoleon's tenacious opposition eventually bringing him to bay. Meanwhile, and much much worse, the Spanish assume the position of the Scottish, meaning that the entire latin American community would speak Scottish, not Spanish. Can you possibly imagine the utter wrongness of that? Imagine the "Macarena" sung with a thick Scottish brogue.....OCK! MACKARRRENA! Imagine "La Vida Loco", "Felice Navidad" or "Des Colores" accompanied by bagpipes.

No, whatever you do, do not switch the positions of France and England.

But to be pedantinc, in North Spain the bagpipes are traditional, because there are some regions (Galicia and Asturias, mainly) of heavy, heavy Celt influence.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by yaroslav




But to be pedantinc, in North Spain the bagpipes are traditional, because there are some regions (Galicia and Asturias, mainly) of heavy, heavy Celt influence.

Don't lay the blame too heavily on the Celtiberians- there were bagpipes in the Islamic world too.


(I do like some bagpipe music though- especially the Northumbrian and Irish pipes. They tend to be softer and less strident than the asthmatic tortured cat sound produced by the Scots' pipes)

http://www.topicrecords.co.uk/acatalog/index2.html

[Mr. Harley]

Asthmatic tortured cat sound.

By the way, just where did you here an asthmatic tortured cat - I gotta here this one, I can barely type I'm laughting so hard.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Asthmatic tortured cat sound.

By the way, just where did you here an asthmatic tortured cat - I gotta here this one, I can barely type I'm laughting so hard.

Oddly enough it stems from visiting the parents of a friend when they lived in Plympton, in Devon.


Thye had an absolutely ENORMOUS tabby cat, of an extremely amiable disposition, but of a gargantuan size. It wasn't overweight, or overfed, or heavy boned, just a vast leviathan of pussycatness.


So evenly tempered was this Cat Kong that Jane's father could pick Tigger up and holding him under his arm, pretend to play him like Scottish bagpipes. This of course led us to put on a record of Moira Anderson and Kenneth McKellar having a real hootenanny Hogmanay, replete with trad. Scots' songs celebrating the joys of deep fried Mars Bars, Irn Bru, battered fried pizza and 40 cigarettes a day, to a bagpiped background.


Tigger happened to have a slightly blocked nose (it was summer) so....

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Don't lay the blame too heavily on the Celtiberians- there were bagpipes in the Islamic world too.

Yes, but Asturias and Galicia were by large, the regions less affected by muslim invantion. While my home city was muslim-conquered in 711 and not conquered by Christians until 1486, Galicia and Asturias were already in the IX century very muslim-free

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by yaroslav


Yes, but Asturias and Galicia were by large, the regions less affected by muslim invantion. While my home city was muslim-conquered in 711 and not conquered by Christians until 1486, Galicia and Asturias were already in the IX century very muslim-free

But you don't need to conquer to share cultural influences.

After all, the Alfonsine Tables were produced through a history of lengthy interaction between the Christian and Islamic scientific worlds, and Mozarabic music was common to the Christian and Islamic worlds in the Iberian peninsula, as were Mozarabic and Mudejar architectural styles.


A golden age of human civilization, gone, gone, gone....


(well except for the bagpipes of course....)

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by yaroslav




But to be pedantinc, in North Spain the bagpipes are traditional, because there are some regions (Galicia and Asturias, mainly) of heavy, heavy Celt influence.

There was also a migration of celts from Cornwall and Wales to Galatia in the 7th and 8th centuries. They emigrated to Galatia and Brittany to escape the Saxons. There was a study of gene markers that confirmed a genetic link between Wales and Galatia published a few years back. The genetic marker was less prevalent in England. The authors speculated that the findings demonstrated that the Celtic people had been virtually eliminated in England proper, with remnants surviving in Wales and Galatia. They presumed that the Galatians were descendants of the Iberian celts pre-dating the Roman empire. They neglecte to mention that there were records of a celtic migration from the British isles to Iberia.

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by molly bloom

But you don't need to conquer to share cultural influences.

After all, the Alfonsine Tables were produced through a history of lengthy interaction between the Christian and Islamic scientific worlds, and Mozarabic music was common to the Christian and Islamic worlds in the Iberian peninsula, as were Mozarabic and Mudejar architectural styles.

Yes, but many of these things come from Toledo, Seville, cities that were under muslim rule or influence. If you go to Asturias and Galicia and later to Toledo or Seville or Malaga or any city on the south, you will see that the influence is much clearer here.

A golden age of human civilization, gone, gone, gone....
(well except for the bagpipes of course....)

Agreed, it was a golden age of civilization, but I am afraid that among the big number of things that Arabs left on the peninsule were not the bagpipes of Galicia and Asturias Nor that I want to dismiss the importance of the muslim civilization on Spain, of course.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Dissident



naw late imho. battle of britain clinched it. so many wasted resource on what?

The resources spent on ther Battle of Britain were small compared to the resources spent on Operation Barbarossa, and had Barbarossa worked, it would have been only a matter of time before the UK would have had to give in.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Interesting question. I think it is obvious that once the US joined the war, German defeat was inevitable, due to the onset of the atomic bomb. Even given German "superweapons", and even allowing Germany to conquer the Soviet Union and the UK, the US still would have utterly destroyed Germany in 1948-1949, using hundreds of atomic weapons dropped from B-36s based in the continental US.

Had the Reich conquered the USSR and the UK, I think that there would be little the US could do to fight the Reich one on one. By 1949 the Nazis would have had nukes as well, and they wouldn't have hesitated to use them against the US if need be. If Germany had conquered the Soviets, the war would have ended with a Cold War type semi-truce between the US and Nazi Germany (assuming that Japan and the US still go to war, with the US ultimately prevailing.) Would the US risk retalliation by launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the Reich? No, I don't think so.

I bet that there would even be overtures through inept Nazi Diplomacy suggesting that the US and the Reich should be allies, or at least not be at war with each other, given the large percentage of German blood in the US (something that Hitler believed would ultimately redeem the US).

That's why I think that Stalingrad and Kursk were the two nails in the coffin of the 3rd Reich. Once it was clear that the Nazis weren't going to conquer the Soviets, then it was a matter of time before the Soviets overran Germany.

[Dis]

Originally posted by GePap


The resources spent on ther Battle of Britain were small compared to the resources spent on Operation Barbarossa, and had Barbarossa worked, it would have been only a matter of time before the UK would have had to give in.

what about the resources required to "hold" Russia. You think the Russians would stand idly by while their country is occupied? Even the pansy french had resistance. You can expect much more from Russia.