From what point was Germany doomed during WWII?

[Domen]

What about this:
Self-Defense Vilnius (Lithuania and Belarus Self-Defense) was established in October 1918 and on 29 December 1918 were included formally in the composition of the Polish Army. It was commanded by General Wladyslaw Wejtko, and chief of staff was Major Stanislaw Bobiatyński.

Also incorrect?

No - this is correct I think.

So in other words self-defence units consisting of civilians were purely formally incorporated to the Polish army. They couldn't be incorporated to the Polish army factually, since there was no Polish army in that area and Polish either civilian or military administration was also non-existant there.

They could enter the ranks of the Polish army in fact only after breaking through the German cordon westward - to Poland.

It really means nothing and still doesn't allow anyone to claim that Poles "invaded" Minsk or Vilnius in late 1918, since they did not invade but they were local civilians of Polish, Jewish, Belarusian, Lithuanian and other nationalities, who decided to defend their homes against the Reds.

Those forces were formed there by local inhabitants, they did not come there from Poland.

Only post-factum they were formally incorporated to the structures of the Polish army.

Possibly the reason of doing this was to ensure that captured members of those Self-Defence civilian units would be treated according to international laws of war as Prisoners Of War - not as just "armed civilian terrorists". So the decision to incorporate them was taken in order to save their lifes.

 

[red_elk]

So in other words self-defence units consisting of civilians were purely formally incorporated to the Polish army.

You know, that's how military units are usually created - civilians are being formally incorporated into army.

They couldn't be incorporated to the Polish army factually, since there was no Polish army in that area and Polish either civilian or military administration was also non-existant there.

It doesn't matter, since they were armed force, following orders from Polish government, having commanders from Polish army and performing military tasks in Lithuania and Belorussia. It's more than enough to be part of army factually.

It's like if Ukraine sends some of their combat officers with an order to gather local Ukrainian volunteers in Polish territory and form "self-defence division" of Ukrainian army there. If such division seizes a few towns in South-Eastern Poland, wouldn't you consider this as aggression or invasion?

 

[Domen]

By the way - the Polish-Soviet war caused also territorial harm to Poland.

It spoiled the results of the plebiscite in East Prussia (July 1920) - because of the Polish-Soviet war of 1920 Poles in East Prussia (Masurians and Warmians) did not vote for Poland. Here is why Poles in East Prussia (Masurians & Warmians) didn't vote for Poland during the plebiscite of July 1920:

German propaganda used similar argument towards Masurians as later towards Upper Silesians:

"For the greatness of Poland!
You, German Upper Silesian, will be Polish cannon fodder!"

But by the time of the plebiscite in Prussia (July 1920), their argument was somehow even more convincing... :

======================================

Extent of Poles in southern East Prussia:

Map from ca. 1900:

Map from 1931 (here "Poles" = mother tongue Polish):

 

[MilesGregarius]

@ Domen & Red Elk:

This is all very interesting, but don't you think it deserves its own thread?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The same happened in Finland, IIRC.
In simple words, all Reds there were killed.

I actually think the Finnish question was decided by domestic nationalist groups, I don't think they got any aid from the Allies for it. It all happened so early-on in the Civil War, and the Soviet basically accepted their independence and quietly hoped the Finnish communists would succeed and rejoin them.

Heinz Guderian's advanced scout claimed to be within sight of the Kremlin when their tanks ran out of fuel during Operation: Barbarossa.

Guderian is as good at theatrics as he is at generalship then. Guderian's advance was stopped outside of Tula, which is a few dozen miles south of Moscow, but not by empty fuel tanks. The Soviets made a terrific stand outside the city that housed their largest munitions and firearms factories.

 

[Domen]

Guderian is writing fairy tales.

The furthest point of German advance on Moscow in 1941 was reached by recon battalion of 258. Inf.Div. on 2 December 1941.

That point was Khimki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khimki

German presence in Khimki lasted until the morning on 3 December, when they were pushed back from that place by Soviet counterattack.

Considering that outskirts of Moscow were covered mainly by low buildings in 1941, Germans most probably could see the domes of the Kremlin towers (Kremlin is several km from Khimki IIRC). But it was just a recon unit of a reserve infantry division - not Guderian with his Panzers.

And that unit didn't receive support and had to withdraw back on the next morning.

============================================

Some other sources say that before that incident on 2 December, there was another one.

Allegedly already on 16 October 1941 a motorized recon platoon of the 62nd engineer battalion (it was an independent battalion subordinated directly to army command) made it to Khimki - but not as far into Khimki as those guys in December.

But that platoon entered the outskirts of Moscow incidentally, they were far ahead of the main part of their batallion, which - respectively - found itself far ahead of other German units. That platoon spent several hours in Khimki and then moved back without a fight.

Anyway - the furthest point of German advance on Moscow was certainly Khimki.

=================================

Oh - and wikipedia even confirms this (I didn't notice until now):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khimki

Khimki was the site of the closest German advance to Moscow in November–December 1941. A memorial marking this in a form of a giant tank trap is located at the "Kilometer 23" point (55°54´46.103"N, 37°24´10.577"E) of Leningradskoye Highway, the highway to St. Petersburg, just short of an intersection with the Moscow-St.Petersburg railroad, and close to an IKEA shopping center.

They almost made it to the IKEA shopping center!

but don't you think it deserves its own thread?

Or we can just leave that discussion.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

And as I noted, Guderian wasn't even involved in the main thrust at Moscow. His army was swinging in to flank from the southeast, but got stopped at Tula.

You can see on this map just how far away Tula is. It's close, but it's not that close. It's a completely different oblast.

 

[red_elk]

BTW, even from Khimki it wasn't possible to see the Kremlin.
What they could see from there were probably some tall buildings in Moscow outskirts.
....
Tula-Moscow distance is 200 km.

 

[Domen]

Yes you are right. There is some 20 km (23 maybe?) between Khimki and Kremlin:

http://maps.google.pl/maps?q=Khimki...code_result&ct=image&resnum=3&ved=0CDkQ8gEwAg

 

[Lord Baal]

Guderian is as good at theatrics as he is at generalship then. Guderian's advance was stopped outside of Tula, which is a few dozen miles south of Moscow, but not by empty fuel tanks. The Soviets made a terrific stand outside the city that housed their largest munitions and firearms factories.

Oh, I'm well-aware that Guderian is full of crap in that regard. In fact, Guderian was known, even in his lifetime, to be an even better bullcrap-artist than a general. The point, that the German advance on Moscow halted in large part due to a lack of fuel - not that it would have done them any good, since, as LS stated earlier, the Soviet counterattack would have annihilated them - is what I was interested in making.

 

[Elephantium]

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.

If you're going that far, why not go back to 1919? The Treaty of Versailles nearly guaranteed WW2. As Marshal Foch pointed out, "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty-one years".

 

[LightSpectra]

If you're going that far, why not go back to 1919? The Treaty of Versailles nearly guaranteed WW2. As Marshal Foch pointed out, "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty-one years".

Marshal Foch was neither an economist, sociologist, nor a fortune teller. There's a difference between something being impossible and something being inevitable.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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.

It's interesting, because this is almost precisely the Soviet view of things. It is also how my military history professor taught that the Allies were thinking early-on. If you've ever seen the movie Troy, it's basically the conversation that Agamemnon and Sean Bean Odysseus have about using Achilles in the coming war.

The whole thing gets even funnier once the Soviets sign the non-aggression pact, since now they're also trying to play the Nazis into the exact same game with a reverse of cast.

 

[red_elk]

It's interesting, because this is almost precisely the Soviet view of things.

About proxy war -
The Soviets were expecting Hitler to sign peace with Britain at some point (before 06.1941), and were even considering possibility of British-German alliance. The fact that Hitler attacked the USSR without peace agreement with Britain shows that Germans had seriously underestimated Soviet capability to defend.

I highly doubt that Britain alone was capable of defeating Germany, and IMO predictions of economical collapse of Germany in several years after 1939 cannot be taken seriously. Today we can't say for sure what will happen to the world economy in next few weeks, not to say years.

 

[Dachs]

If you're going that far, why not go back to 1919? The Treaty of Versailles nearly guaranteed WW2. As Marshal Foch pointed out, "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty-one years".

go back to 1871, because the treaty of frankfurt made world war i inevitable and it was impossible for germany to win world war i, thus setting up world war ii lololololol

 

[innonimatu]

and IMO predictions of economical collapse of Germany in several years after 1939 cannot be taken seriously. Today we can't say for sure what will happen to the world economy in next few weeks, not to say years.

That's an idea I subscribe to also. The fact was that Germany's economy survived easily until 1944, despite the war, and that alone is 5 years. It had to be conquered in order to be knocked out. It's true that they pillaged a lot from all over Europe, but did that even made up for the war expenses? The claims that Germany would inevitably lose to the UK if the war hadn't involved the US and the USSR seem bogus to me.

 

[LightSpectra]

I highly doubt that Britain alone was capable of defeating Germany, and IMO predictions of economical collapse of Germany in several years after 1939 cannot be taken seriously. Today we can't say for sure what will happen to the world economy in next few weeks, not to say years.

On what ground do you say that it "cannot be taken seriously"?

It's true that they pillaged a lot from all over Europe, but did that even made up for the war expenses?

Yes, it did. Basically all of Germany's conquests were based on economic necessity, from the Anschluss (to get Austrian ore and iron) to Barbarossa (which was to acquire Soviet oil and food caches). This was based on projections by the cabinet; even the hardcore "Hitler can do no wrong" Nazis in the government determined this, which is to say nothing of the people like Hjalmar Schacht and Ludwig Beck who were politically neutral.

 

[xchen08]

I highly doubt that Britain alone was capable of defeating Germany, and IMO predictions of economical collapse of Germany in several years after 1939 cannot be taken seriously. Today we can't say for sure what will happen to the world economy in next few weeks, not to say years.

Economic collapse is one thing, actual defeat, regime change, etc is quite another. North Korea's economy collapsed decades ago, but they are still there and annoying us all. I too doubt that Britain was capable of (as in with a high probability, it certainly wasn't impossible, particularly with Tube Alloys) defeating Germany alone, but I take the prediction of economic collapse quite seriously.

On the other hand, flipping the perspective around to that of the Germans, they really were in a rather no-win scenario. Becoming an oversized North Korea surely doesn't count as victory, and neither does becoming a Soviet vassal to aquire the resources needed to avoid becoming North Korea.

 

[Louis XXIV]

go back to 1871, because the treaty of frankfurt made world war i inevitable and it was impossible for germany to win world war i, thus setting up world war ii lololololol

Now let's find a reason the Franco-Prussian War was inevitable. I'm thinking Congress of Vienna, but I'm too lazy to think this through.

 

[Dachs]

Now let's find a reason the Franco-Prussian War was inevitable. I'm thinking Congress of Vienna, but I'm too lazy to think this through.

easy; German Nationalism^TM