From what point was Germany doomed during WWII?

[Tahuti]

Seeing a similiar thread about WWI, I figure it would be interesting to make such a thread about WWII.

From which point was a WWII concluding in a German defeat inevitable?

Personally, I think Germany was doomed before they even invaded the USSR. Ofcourse I'm talking about the Battle of Britain.

Think about it: The skies were now in firm control of Britain, and they would have only further soldified to the point Britain was next to untouchable by air. The British had more GDP to their disposal than Germany and the British would have surely used it to build more aircraft: Fighters to keep British airspace British and Bombers to bomb Germany's GDP away.
Even with Germany winning on the Eastern front, they would have to divert enourmous amounts of manpower to suppress partisan activity. Even if the USA wouldn't be attacked by Japan and thus forced to stay neutral, they still will be able to support the British economically. Ultimately, the British would've bombed Germany to submission, and Germany would also have to deal with partisans in both Western and Eastern Europe.

Such a WWII would likely degenerate in a low intensity conflict like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would probably last for decades, but Germany would never be able to win because of British air superiority. You might think "what about the atomic bomb?" but then, Germany wouldn't be economically be able to embark on such a project anyway.

 

[LightSpectra]

The war was unwinnable from 1933, which is when Germany began making economic decisions that facilitated long-term instability.

Britain basically could've won the war by itself, simply with its industrial capacity and ULTRA. The whole conflict was really a proxy war between the Western Allies and the Soviets.

 

[Tahuti]

I heard Germany got itself into some terrible debts to finance the creation of its war machine, which supposedly motivated Germany to invade Western-Europe.

The whole conflict was really a proxy war between the Western Allies and the Soviets.

That quite explains Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Japan would have surrendered to the Soviets otherwise.

 

[Tee Kay]

From which point was a WWII concluding in a German defeat inevitable?

Oh, nothing's inevitable. But a German victory was highly unlikely even in 1939, simply because its enemies and potential enemies can vastly outproduce it.

That quite explains Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Japan would have surrendered to the Soviets otherwise.

It wouldn't have. Far more preferable to negotiate with the Americans than submit to communists.

Britain basically could've won the war by itself, simply with its industrial capacity and ULTRA. The whole conflict was really a proxy war between the Western Allies and the Soviets.

Not everything has to be seen in Cold War terms.

 

[Ajidica]

I would have to say Kursk. Now, Germany was unable, period, to achieve its pre-war aims of conquering all of Europe and creating the Aryan state. Prior to Kursk it might have maintained a large enough army to hold off the Russians and UK/America and remain strong enough to negotiate some half-decent peace deals with the Allies. Afterwards, the Russians had the clear advantage in the East which drew experianced troops away from the west which weakened their positions.

 

[Karalysia]

Not everything has to be seen in Cold War terms.

Especially since that was the least of Soviet concerns. The economy was still in shambles following the civil war and collectivization and de-kulakization had made a mess of things. The five years plans had begun to increase production but there was still a long way to go. Socialism in One Country and all that. The Winter War had also shown how poor of a condition the Red Army was in and Stalin's purges were kicking off and he spiraled into paranoia. The country was just in a terrible state.

 

[duckstab]

I think it's possible, though unlikely, that the Germans might actually have eventually forced a British surrender had Pearl Harbor not happened or been delayed. Though Hitler was already shifting his air and land forces eastward early in 1941 for the invasion of Russia, the U-boat campaign was still enjoying considerable success. In all probability though, the intelligence advantage provided by Ultra and the help she was getting from America would have kept Britain going until the U.S. actually entered.

One would think that the late start of Barbarossa and the lack of preparedness on the part of the Germans for a winter war would have doomed that operation from the start. But after Stalingrad, it was pretty much over.

 

[BuckyRea]

Oh, nothing's inevitable. But a German victory was highly unlikely even in 1939, simply because its enemies and potential enemies can vastly outproduce it.

Except that from 1939 to mid 1941, Germany's biggest and most troublesome enemy wasn't on its 'potential enemies' list. I mean, obviously some kind of war between Germany and the Soviet Union was going to happen anyway. But this "doomed from the start" assertion is nonsense unless you assume that everyone who fought against Hitler was destined to do so at the same time.

Operation Sealion, as demonstrated numerous times by numerous smarter guys than me in numerous online discussion fora have demonstrated, was a buggy idea. Hitler lacked the equipment to cross the Channel. After grabbing Norway, France, and Anne Frank, had pretty much maxed out his game in the West. There really wasn't much effort put in that direction after he realized that--just the continued air war.

But there's no rule saying he had to invade Russia when he did. Up until 1941, he was bi-winning. Operation Barbarossa was the point at which his ego outreached his grasp (if I may butcher the metaphor). Had he held his fire in the east and hammered England until he could secure a negotiated peace.

Had he held off the Soviet invasion for a couple of years, plus had he not allowed himself to be tied down into an alliance with Japan (which obliged him to declare war on the US just a few months after he bit off more than he could chew in Russia), Germany might well have coasted along to a negotiated peace with Britain by 1942 or 43.

In other words, had Hitler, after being strategically daring and audacious up until 1941, suddenly stopping being a megalomaniacal bully in 1941 and quit being himself and suddenly got strategically cautious and reserved about holding onto the decent sized reich he'd grabbed by that point (and had he previously had the wisdom not to shackle himself to Japan's fortunes in the Pacific) he might well have ridden out the war years and brought his country around to the decay and collapse that his short sighted fiscal policies were pointing him toward.

Oh Hitler, won't you ever learn?

 

[Louis XXIV]

I'm going to go with the original post and say the Battle of Britain. Even assuming some kind of victory in the East or even (historically unlikely as it would be) maintained peace in the east the UK was outproducing Germany and were essentially invulnerable to significant harm. Eventually, the allied forces (provided the United States eventually could enter) would find a crack in the west and push through. The war would have taken longer, but it was still a likely victory.

I don't know the African campaign as well as I should. The only thing I could think about is if Rommel could be creative enough to push through to Egypt and take the canal. But I understand the war was significantly influenced by logistics and the Royal Navy gives the UK the edge there.

EDIT: I see no reason to believe the UK would have negotiated peace any more than they did against Napoleon.

 

[BuckyRea]

But did Napoleon ever offer peace? My alternative Hitler¹ would have bombed the Brits for a few months into 1941 and then said, "Okay, enough of this silliness; I really don't want to invade you. Can we please just call it quits?" Maybe he could've arranged for the Swedes to mediate a peace. I'm not talking the real Hitler. But if he¹ had suddenly got wise and started offering serious terms (eg, leave a demilitarized France with free elections and maybe handing Crete back), just to secure the peace, how well would Britain have been able to sustain a war effort in the face of a peace initiative?

Of course my supposition is total ASB territory; Hitler was a warmonger to the marrow. I'm just postulating what he could have done to save himself, not what he ever would've done.

 

[Dreadnought]

The concrete sign that the end was near: Kursk, as mentioned above.

A more abstract sign was probably the failure of Sea Lion to get going. I'm not going to mention Barbarossa, considering there are new opinions about that, but without Britain being pacified, there was much less of a chance to win in Russia.

 

[Louis XXIV]

But did Napoleon ever offer peace? My alternative Hitler¹ would have bombed the Brits for a few months into 1941 and then said, "Okay, enough of this silliness; I really don't want to invade you. Can we please just call it quits?" Maybe he could've arranged for the Swedes to mediate a peace. I'm not talking the real Hitler. But if he¹ had suddenly got wise and started offering serious terms (eg, leave a demilitarized France with free elections and maybe handing Crete back), just to secure the peace, how well would Britain have been able to sustain a war effort in the face of a peace initiative?

Of course my supposition is total ASB territory; Hitler was a warmonger to the marrow. I'm just postulating what he could have done to save himself, not what he ever would've done.

Churchill was unequivocal that surrender was not an option. I don't see anything that would have changed that. Certainly, not with an occupied France, Netherlands, Belgium, and Denmark. Probably not while the entire Cassus Belli, Poland, was occupied.

Napoleon had no ambitions in the UK either. He really had nothing to gain from war aside from preventing British interference on the continent. Part of the Colonial System was designed to shut Britain out of Europe to hopefully make them a non-factor.

 

[Dachs]

But did Napoleon ever offer peace?

Yes and no. Outside of the whole Peace of Amiens episode, which even Addington eventually recognized as a stupid idea (making peace with Napoleon was roughly about as sane as attempting to shake hands with a velociraptor, with equivalent potential for being mauled in the process), there were bilateral Anglo-French negotiations in 1808. These were negotiations in name only, because Napoleon instructed Talleyrand to not actually concede anything; he expected to get French colonies back, in addition to Sicily, without having to give away anything on the Continent, not even concessions with regard to the Swiss Confederation or Sweden. This was, of course, patently ludicrous, as Talleyrand quickly recognized: he was reduced to asking for an uti possidetis peace, while claiming that uti possidetis did not actually mean "what each side currently controls" in the case of all of France's demands, such that uti possidetis encompassed Sicily, because France theoretically could attack it and occupy it. So Canning, who had seriously considered peace with Napoleon (he didn't relish the prospect of a Micawberian war), laughed Talleyrand out of the talks.

 

[LightSpectra]

Was there literal laughing involved?

 

[Dachs]

I wish.

 

[Tahuti]

It wouldn't have. Far more preferable to negotiate with the Americans than submit to communists.

It is quite impossible to surrender to the Americans when the Soviets control the majority of your land. Without Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the whole Korean peninsula would have certainly fallen to the Soviets and there would probably be an Allied invasion of Japan: That scenario would've at the very least resulted in an Allied partition of Japan itself ala Germany.

Thus, WWII would've ended much more in the favor of the Soviets.

 

[Tee Kay]

It is quite impossible to surrender to the Americans when the Soviets control the majority of your land.

It needn't come to that. Japan at the time was already very war-weary. Even without atomic bombs the Americans could still bomb Japan into submission, and scare the elites with the threat of a Soviet takeover. Not to mention that Operation Downfall was also in the works.

 

[Tahuti]

Not to mention that Operation Downfall was also in the works.

But like I said, it was by no means guarenteed that America would able to take all of Japan, had the allies invaded Japan.

But if he1 had suddenly got wise and started offering serious terms (eg, leave a demilitarized France with free elections and maybe handing Crete back), just to secure the peace, how well would Britain have been able to sustain a war effort in the face of a peace initiative?

Problem is that, Hitler pretty much discredited himself when he used the Sudentenland crisis to destroy Czechoslovakia with it, which was ultimately the reason why Poland joined the Allies. Who would be willing to buy such an offer? Only Neville Chamberlain would have.

 

[Tee Kay]

But like I said, it was by no means guarenteed that America would able to take all of Japan, had the allies invaded Japan.

That's not the same as what you said earlier. That "Japan would've surrendered to the Soviets" had there been no atomic bombing is not certain or even likely.

Problem is that, Hitler pretty much discredited himself when he used the Sudentenland crisis to destroy Czechoslovakia with it, which was ultimately the reason why Poland joined the Allies. Who would be willing to buy such an offer? Only Neville Chamberlain would have.

Neville Chamberlain wouldn't have. He was the guy who protected Poland, declared war, and rejected German peace offers that would've left Poland under Nazi rule. Why would he accept an offer that would've left the Nazis and their allies in control of Eastern Europe and a demilitarised France?

 

[Dachs]

Lord Halifax might've tried, but I dunno if he could've pushed it through the Commons.