Was German defeat inevitable after D-Day?

nah, when hitler opened easter front

File: 1462130217358.jpg (64KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 499x499px

German defeat was inevitable after Stalingrad.
German victory was impossible after the Battle for Moscow.

>>1996375
But but muh uppity untermenschen had to be defeated!

>>1996357

German defeat was inevitable quite a while before D-Day.

>>1996385
This. After operation Citadel, the Germans had lost in effect doomed the eastern front. D-Day only sped up the rate at which Germany lost ground in the eastern front by having to deal with two different spearheads. .

>>1996429

I might even push it back a bit before Kursk. Kursk was a last, desperate attempt to regain initiative by the Germans, but the balance of force on the Eastern Front was against them already, and worsening all the time due to Soviet production being greater than German production.

I'm not 100% sure when that tipping point was, but I always kind of viewed Kursk as illustrating the balance of force on the Eastern Front, rather than radically changing it.

>>1996454
The fact that Kursk was an open book to the gommies didn't help. When your codes are getting cracked because your gassed all your intelligentsia and you're too ideological to admit it was a mistake, you're pretty deep in the hole already.

>>1996543

And that's my point. Unless you get a ridiculously low odds complete smashing success at Kursk that wipes out a third of the Red Army at a stroke and you can roll all the way to anywhere you want, a German victory in Citadel isn't enough.

That it was a defeat made it much much worse, of course, but no amount of good performance at Kursk is going to stop the Western Allied aerial offensives, or get Italy back in the war, or stop the colossal production advantage the Allies enjoy over the axis, or stop the intelligence leaks, etc.

The tipping point to inevitable defeat probably happened in the factories, not on the battlefield, although when exactly you place it isn't something I'm 100% on.

>>1996552
December 7th.

.

>>1996357
German defeat was inevitable after Kursk.
German victory was no longer an option after Stalingrad.

>>1996357
>Der Führer opens the eastern front
>"hurr dur Howitzer did I lösen?!"

Germany lost when they thought the war would be short and didn't bother with total war approach to production until it was too late.

>>1997064
ww2 shows outdated artillery still outperforms no artillery

>>1997106
What do you mean?

>>1997064
Germany actually came very close in the east. A two front war wasn't really the best move but they actually managed surprisingly well thanks to attacking earlier than the soviets had anticipated.

Battle of Moscow stalled the war machine, Stalingrad tipped the scales and momentum in favor of the Russians, Kursk sealed their defeat in the east and was the last major counteroffensive towards the russians.

Was inevitable after America entered the war. Unmatched industrial capacity along with allies like Canada to continually feed the machines. Probably the other point of equal significance was the opening of the eastern front.

How long could the Germans hold out against the Russians if Hitler gave his generals free reign?

German defeat was inevitable starting in December 1941.

>>1997347
Not much longer. The German generals were miracle workers, it's absolutely amazing that they managed to keep things going as long as they did. By all rights, the German war effort should have failed either in 1940 or 1941. The fact that they managed to take out France and push the USSR to the brink almost defies belief.

>>1997357
hooray for amphetamines

>>1996357
It was inevitable after breaking the non agression pact

File: 1416021879757.jpg (354KB, 1582x1034px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 1582x1034px

>>1997347
At least until 1946 if not 1947. Hitler really was the Achilles heel of the German forces. There are multiple accounts of Wehrmacht generals after the war stating that on multiple occasions, Hitler would take over personally, micromanage, sack someone, and proceed to complicate the situation further.

The argument could be made that some of these accusations towards Hitler was over-exaggerated but when you lose a whole army because you're too prideful to accept a retreat, then you've got a bigger problem on your hands.

>>1997272
>Germany came very close in the east
like hell they did. Neither Leningrad or Moscow were close to being captured by the Germans. The whole "German artillery was in range of Moscow" is a meme since if street-fighting happened in Moscow like it did in Stalingrad, It would of made Stalingrad look like a walk in the park. Even if Moscow Stalingrad, and Leningrad had fallen, soviets would of just kept moving East with more vigor since their capital had fallen.

>>1997347
Maybe early 1946. Somewhere in 1943 Russians finally got ahold of the situation and their losses were pretty okay, compared to the start of the war.

>>1997242
Soviet artillery count is so lopsided it boggles the mind, even though it was ww1 era armament

>>1997396
Weren't they trying to depose him to end the war, though?

>>1997406
>would of

Kinda of topic, but let's say the nazis just took the land before invading Poland and didn't start ww2, would the extreme policies of nazi germany have fizzled out after Hitler died of say natural causes?

File: 1468580976764.jpg (1MB, 1031x1314px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1031x1314px

>>1996357
It was inevitable even before that. The Soviets were going to skull fuck the Germans all the way to the Atlantic at the rate they were growing in strength and Hitler kept fucking up. D-Day merely limited Russia to occupying East Germany.

File: smug.jpg (9KB, 248x233px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 248x233px

>>1997272
>Germany actually came very close in the east

Germany had to invade the Soviets before they became too powerful, this was known to everyone and was why Barbarossa was inevitable.

If they had invaded earlier, things might have smoother but not much. If they had avoided pissing off the entire world and hadn't had the Lend-Lease act happen earlier that year, it would've been a massive improvement. The western front made things worse but only keeping the Soviet Industry down would've given them a chance.

>>1997545
>though
Yes. They were. Exactly for the reasons stated.

>>1996357
German defeat was certain after Barbarossa stalled.

>>1996357
It was inevitable after Kursk, even if D-Day had never happened.

>>1998005
It was inevitable long before then. Even before Stalingrad, the Germans had suffered irreplaceable losses.

>>1996357

Germany lost when they lost the Bismark.

WHat if the Germans had taken Moscow when they had the chance? What would be the impact on the war? How could they have taken Moscow?

>>1998074

They never had a chance, the question is moot.

>>1997630
What if they decided to placate and appease the soviets instead of fighting them?

>>1996357
It was inevitable on December 7, 1941.

>>1998022
How so? Where?

>>1998074
The same thing that happened to Napoleon.

the germans were fucked no matter what they did, even if by some miracle they were able to hold off the russians the a-bombs were coming by summer 1945 and they had no answer to them

File: 14763666186650.png (11KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 420x420px

>>1996375
is it because americans don't celebrate easter?

>>1996375

First Answer Best Answer

>>1998645
If they had taken Britian by then, they just had to sink any warship that crosses the atlantik, which wasnt difficult with their +20 years advance in submarine warfare

>>1997347
2 years at the very most.

1.5 years is still generous.

>>1998704
Yeah and if they had taken America by then they just had to sink any warship that crosses the Pacific.

>>1998809
That the japs Problem

so how do we beat mother russia?

>>1996375
Russsia had been defeated in WW1 already. Leading the situation at the Eastern Front to a stalemate and getting a favourable outcome out of it could have well been possible - even without actually conquering Russia. It's the economic might of America that made the real difference in WW2. And in '45 nuclear weapons would have sealed the outcome anyway.

File: 1479035365107.jpg (124KB, 1024x1021px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1024x1021px

Ok, now what were the chances of USA beating the Urss just after ww2? Like a conquest by land in Europe and the pacific by sea.

>>1999355
Slim. The US would make a good push at first, but with winter right around the corner, they'd probably just freeze to death.

>>1999355
Very likely the US would defeat the USSR. The US had a greater industry, nukes, air superiority, artillery, and naval supremacy. They could have started a second front in Siberia if they wanted to, that's how good their logistic capabilities were.

>>1999355
Play hearts of iron and find out.

>>1999391
Hitler had a greater industry, air superiority, artillery, and naval supremacy. No manpower no party in the Soviet Russia

>>1999413
>>1999355
USA had no chance, he sent some troops to defeat the Japanese and Germans and the people were already tired of the war

>>1999413
The US's manpower was similar if not greater than the USSR's though

>>1999427
USA can't send all they manpower to die in one hypothetical european and sino-japanese front because it is a democracy.

>>1999279
People keep on saying that nukes would have sealed the deal but this is simply untrue. If Germany still held France what were the allies going to do? Nuke French soil? Not a chance. If the Eastern Front stayed closed or stalemated, and German production wasn't eaten by the attrition of the East, leading the Germans to not be totally at a loss in the air, it would not have been too extreme a task to intercept long range bombers before they reach Germany.

>>1996357

It was inevitable after the 6th Army was annihilated during the Russian encirclement of Stalingrad. Hitler just couldn't accept retreat.

>>1999355

With their naval advantage, overwhelming air superiority, atomic weapons, and not having literally all their young men killed already?

Very likely to win, advantage in all measures except tanks and personnel immediately in Europe. And even then the Soviets have extreme logistics problems keeping that basic bitch land force active.

>>1999463

While a bone headed decision, lets be honest.

The entire 6th army wouldnt have changed the outcome of the war

>>1999509

The entire 6th army fighting for Berlin against the Soviets might encourage the Western allies to accept a German surrender.

>>1999509
I think that with the 6th Army Germany could have frozen the front, but the true is this.
>>1996375

>>1998215
The Germans were taking unsustainable losses from the outset of the Eastern Front, and these especially got bad in the Soviet Winter Offensive of 41-42.

Everyone hypothesizes about how the Soviet Union wouldn't have been able to fight the war without key resources and support from the US, but the Germans were fighting the war that way from 1939. When they launched the Stalingrad Offensive, they were already operating with a manpower shortage of 600,000 men, and 2,000 tanks. Only 8 divisions in the Wehrmacht were considered suitable for all operations, down from 136 at the outset of Barbarossa.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caoxNSNcQZs

>>1998704
You must be at 18 years old to browse this website.

>>1999545

Totally disagree with you. Especially once news of the camps are discovered, the allies will stop at nothing but the total surrender of Germany.

In fact, it is to the Allied advantage to do so as that means the Soviets would have much less of Eastern Germany, post war.

>>1996357
Yes. Combined arms with multiple liaison nations would have just overpowered Germany.
>>1996375
Nice meme
The Germans could have prepared better for winter or fallen back and set up fortified positions.
The Russian won the steppes because the Germans couldn't take the initiative, had the Germans gone defensive and surrendered the initiative from the get go the Russians would wear themselves down and their numerical advantage would become a logistical disadvantage.

Germany could have pulled off a win before D-Day, but when the Western Allies got boots on the ground it was game over, the American economy at one of its heights was now pitted against an already struggling German economy.

German defeat was inevitable somewhere around 42.

>>1999571
Sorry m8, pls dont tell my mom

>>1996357
German defeat was inevitable after Stalingrad and Kursk, not after D-day.

>>1998704
>If they had taken Britian by then

lmao, how were they going to pull that off? With the river barges Hitler talked about using in Sealion?

>>1999355
Technically, the US could have won, because of its huge advantage in manufacturing and the fact that it was virtually untouched by WWII (only 400,000 casualties in the entire conflict+no damage to the continental US). Realistically, it would have come at such a great cost that the American people would have been unwilling to accept it. We're not like the Russians, who can look at a million dead soldiers and say "oh well, just a bad Monday". The bloodiest war in our entire history saw us lose 700,000 people in the course of 5 years.


>1999440
>If Germany still held France what were the allies going to do? Nuke French soil? Not a chance.

Why nuke French soil? Just hit Germany, with the Allies' incredibly terrifying doomsday weapons.

Option 1: Atomic bombs. Drop some on Berlin, drop some on Leipzig, irradiate the Saarland, etc.

Option 2: "Operation Vegetarian": British chemical warfare which would have killed all livestock in Germany. The Germans were not only dependent on those livestock for food, but for farming (tractors were very rare in 1940s Germany). Let the place starve to death.

Option 3: "Genocide": By the summer of 1945, British scientists had created a strain of anthrax in aerosol form so deadly that it could render miles of territory completely uninhabitable. They tested it out on a tiny little island near Scotland 70 years ago, and it's STILL too dangerous to go there. Worst case scenario, they just drop this on Germany. Millions of German die, the war ends.


Germany never had a snowball's chance in hell of beating the Western Allies. The strain of holding the East (even in a scenario where the Soviets just gave up, walked east of the A-A line, and stopped causing trouble) would stretch their industrial capacity and manpower to the limit. Meanwhile, the US could churn out more planes in a month than Germany could in a year. They were doomed.

>>2000285
Second part of this post (after the greentext) meant for
>>1999440

>Hitler not messing with his generals plans
>Japan attacking USSR, not US
>push from to Turkey to the oil wells of Caucasus
And then, he might have done it.

>>1996377
This. Although the dash for Stalingrad after Moscow is impressive.

>>1996375
Fpbp

>>1996375
Pretty much this. Overlord didn't end the war, but it did achieve its objective of preventing the Soviets from taking over Europe entirely.

>>2000146
Svetovid, you seem like someone worth having a conversation about this with,

>>1999567
My position is here, that the Germans had already lost the war by early 42.

Do you think the 42 offensive could have won it, if it went differently?

File: Rasputitsa-Kharkov-District-May-1942-2.jpg (245KB, 1200x770px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1200x770px

>>1996357

Most historians say Kursk was the point that German generals and military observers understood the war had become untenable and German defeat inevitable. With hindsight, it was obviously earlier, arguably with the Battle of Moscow and the first Lend-Lease equipment seeing combat (early 1942), the beginning of AngloAmerican strategic bombing (mid 1942), and encirclement at Stalingrad (late 1942).

>>1999440

They had trained to nuke and firebomb Germany well in advance, even built mock German towns in Nevada to perfect incendiaries. The B-29 was designed to fly at 40,000 feet because German interceptors, even the Me 262s, operated so poorly at such a height. It would have been bloodier for certain, but German would still lose the attrition game.

>>2000456
They wouldn't even need nukes, either. British anthrax could have done the job too. I've always wondered what would have happened if they did use that option, and killed 20+ million Germans. Would Churchill be seen as a man just as evil as Hitler?

>>1999440
>German production wasn't eaten by the attrition of the East, leading the Germans to not be totally at a loss in the air, it would not have been too extreme a task to intercept long range bombers before they reach Germany.


Germany was losing the air war primarily to the Western Allies, not the Soviets.

http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

You can't just turn a tank factory into an airplane factory, and givne that the German bottleneck was usually pilots, not planes anyway, you won't see that huge of an increase should the war in the east go better.

Problem was always the multi front war, regardless of what may have been the tipping point in the war.

>Soviets couldn't be beaten
Where does this fucking meme come from?
If Moscow fell USSR would be crippled. It was a transportation hub of massive importance. 19th century Napoleonic warfare =/= WW2.
If Caucasus was seized, Soviets would have issues with oil supply.
Just two examples.
Also major defeats like that could lead to Stalin being executed.

>>2000651

And hey, if the Germans teleported 20 divisions into London in August of 1940, they'd probably have conquered the UK! What's this fucking meme that Sealion was impossible coming from?

Germany never had the means to conquer Moscow or the Caucasus, and they tried for both, failing in each instance. They were consistently outbuilt by the Soviets, and the quality gap closed every year. And Moscow was not essential; Stavka planned the Vyzama counteroffensive quite well from Kuybuyshev, and didn't come back until the next summer; the "massive transportation hub" was primarily to service Moscow itself, which obviously won't need deliveries if it somehow falls.

>>2000659
>never had the means
Because of skillful defense.
One possibilty is quick drive towards Moscow that would leave exposed flanks but given the state of Soviet army at that time that is theoretically managable.
Germans invading Britain is simply not given how they had airpower parity and naval supremacy.
>was to serve Moscow
Because Moscow was a center of industry and it wasn't just because of that dude.
I'm simply saying making such statements as "it's impossible" is foolish. Unlikely yes, but not impossible. Alexander conquered entire fucking Persian Empire and beyond. If he failed people would ridicule him as a madman who wanted to defeat a far more populous and bigger empire.

>>2000651
>If Moscow fell USSR would be crippled. It was a transportation hub of massive importance
No one denies it would have been a major defeat, but they had already moved most of their industry east of Urals and Germany still had a long way to go to conquer them. It's not a game of capture the flag.

>>2000692
What about population? They would all be quickly evacuated to Urals?
A lot of industry remained where it was.
That said Moscow could possibly be Stalingrad before Stalingrad, but still, saying it's impossible when in reality Axis had both resource and manpower advantage is kinda weird.
Germans lost because Soviets won, and Soviets won by fighting well. Not because it was impossible for them to lose.

>>2000674
>One possibilty is quick drive towards Moscow that would leave exposed flanks but given the state of Soviet army at that time that is theoretically managable.


And it is also very theoretically possible to lead to them cutting off an entire Army group and you losing a third of your force in a month. You really want to take a gigantic fucking gamble like that? I mean, the Soviets did demonstrate counteroffensive capabilities; Yelnya might have been a failure, but they showed that they could move large numbers of troops to attack when they wanted to.

Furthermore, you can't infinitely concentrate your force, even if the Soviets are sitting around doing jack shit. You only have so much rail capacity (and Soviet scorched earth and partisan activity isn't helping on that score), and even worse motor capacity to move supplies and troops. Putting everything in one big stack to throw it at Moscow is just as impossible as transporting your forces across the North Sea to invade England.

>Because Moscow was a center of industry and it wasn't just because of that dude.

Much of which was evacuated out of the city before the Germans got there; the population shrank by over 50% as well. And if the Germans are primarily facing in that direction instead of barreling through the Ukraine, I imagine the Soviets would evacuate along the projected line of advance there.

> Alexander conquered entire fucking Persian Empire and beyond. If he failed people would ridicule him as a madman who wanted to defeat a far more populous and bigger empire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabasis_(Xenophon)

>>1999600
Barbarosa was a failure due to bad intelligence, not simply "muh winter."

Hitlers men drastically underestimated the amount of Russian soldiers that could be thrown at the German lines, as well as the amount of infastructure that the Russians could maintain and produce. No one believed that "untermench" could put up a legitimate fight against the Reich.

The High Command was unaware of the situation in Russia, and Barbarosa was doomed to fail.

If the Americans stayed out of the war, perhaps the Soviets may have been fought to a standstill. I think, in reality, the Germans didn't realize that the Russians were willing to send an entire generation of men to their deaths, and they didn't and couldn't prepare for it.

>>1996375
/thread

>>1996357
Germany lost in 1776, in fact the whole world lost.

>>1996357
No, when they attacked Poland and the Great Powers decided to smack them down instead of letting them go on as before.

File: lend lease aid to the USSR.png (67KB, 1898x646px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1898x646px

>>1996357
No.

It was inevitable after the US started sending supplies to the Allies, Germany industrial capacity could never match it.

>>2001362

Don't forget that the U.S. sent almost 3 times as much Lend-Lease to the British as what they sent to the USSR.

>>1996357
Hitler decided to waste valuable resources on beating up the Jews, who weren't bothering anyone. If he had left them alone, Germany would have had a better chance, though might still have lost.

File: 1452228480126.png (647KB, 980x652px) Image search: [Google]

647KB, 980x652px

>>2001421
dinndu nuffin

Germany lost in 1939. They never had a chance of winning especially at the rate they were losing money. Germany was already severely in debt and the war was the only thing stopping them from total economic collapse. Also they had no chance to defeat the British or the Soviets.

>>2001370
What the fuck did they do with it?

>>2001482
>people still pretending the spartacist uprisings mattered at all

>>2001482
Nothing in that image is true though

>>2001482
>implying Rosa was wrong

>>2001482
The funniest thing about this picture is the painfully obvious samefaggotry

>>2001482
The Spartacist Uprising lasted for less than two weeks before its leadership was shot.

It wasn't a civil war, but a mass protest and general strike met with violent retribution. Think of Haymarket, but on a much grander scale.

Despite what /pol/ will try to tell you, this happened after the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm

>>2001482
That second reply is the cringiest thing I've ever seen. Who fucking talks like that? A samefag sucking himself off I guess

>>2001781
Just look at the flags

File: Potatoman.jpg (8KB, 196x257px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 196x257px

>>1996357

Sure was anon, only time travelling neo-nazis from the far future could change that outcome.

Seriously though, Hitler's strategic aims were retarded to say the least. Seriously that crazy autist should have been taken out in coup after the failure to subdue the UK.