When did Germany lose the war?

From what I can see in your posts, you say "Germany lost the war when it violated the Munich agreement"... uh... How could Germany "lose a war" that hadn't yet even been declared? They took the remainder of Czechoslovakia in March of 1939, well before the initiation of "the war" that most of us we refer to as WW2. Which war are YOU talking about?

Now, let's get back to the question: When did Germany lose the war? I suggest it occured at the initiation of Operation Barbarossa. You can pick any other time from Sept 1, 1939 until June, 1941. I'll go with the invasion of France if you wish... or failure to defeat England in 1940.

Put aside your childish tantrums and offer ONE VALID ANSWER to the question, and present your evidence. As you love to say so often, the burden of proof is on your shoulders. Or can you only dish it out, but can't take it?

 

fuser - Suggest you change your name to 'Moriarty' to reflect the fountain of negatives waves you produce.
Kelly's Heroes Oddball - Negative Waves - YouTube
LOL
<cheers!>

 

Finally satisfying your childish urge after your failure in engaging in the current debate..

I have already provided the reasoning and your failure to understand it doesn't matter. But on second thought, I am gonna explain it to you for last time.

After the violation of Munich treaty Germany lost the British trust completely, now Britain isn't going to let Germany violate any nation's integrity and as Germany didn't had the capabilities to defeat Britain, it doesn't matter when, how, what type of war Germany starts, its bound to bring her in conflict with Britain and defeating Britain is out of German capability in that time period..

In short, it doesn't matter if Germany's aggressiveness results in world war, European war or any other war after dishonoring munich agreement she was bound to come in conflict with Britain, a conflict she can't win.............

I am not sure why you should define a time period or make rules regarding this and I should follow that

says a person who has been unable to back up a single thing he has said, keeps alluding others the things they never said and has been a utter failure in engaging in any real debate/arguments..and is looking for some sort of "revenge" after his failure to engage in any debate..:lol:

 

There there boy, I seriously didn't realized that I have driven you to such desperation that you are simply unable to produce any arguments and can only come up with childish craps.

Sorry for my facts have reduced you to this level......

 

Hm,if you did not know :Moriarty won,and Sherlock Holmes lost .

 

That is only true if you believe that the demise of Holmes at Richenbach Falls was the end, and that Moriarty also survived which according to Doyle he did NOT.

On May 4, 1891, the detective met his archenemy Professor Moriarty on a ledge above the falls; the two became locked in a titanic hand-to-hand struggle before both tumbled over the precipice, presumably to their deaths. This neat device was Conan Doyle’s way to free himself of the burden of constantly churning out pulpy detective stories and was intended to give himself the freedom to write more elevated literature instead. But he didn’t reckon on public opinion. The outcry against the death of such a popular character as Holmes was so great that in 1903 Conan Doyle was forced to give in to the pressure of his fan mail. He resurrected his nemesis by claiming that Holmes had managed to grab a tuft of grass during the fall into the “dreadful cauldron” and so had lived to solve another mystery.

 

Well historically Russia has shown an interest in the area (SW Asia). There was considerable competition between the British and Russia in and around Afghanistan during the 19th century. The Soviets seem to have forgotten none of the Russian empirial dreams so Soviet interest in Iran and surrounding territory, especially given the oil reserves being detected doesn't seem far off the mark. Post war the Soviets also showed a fair amount of interest in this area as well. So in the absense of a German Soviet war it doesn't seem all that far off the mark to suggest an increase in Soviet activity there.

 

SeaLion was a German fantasy. They lacked the naval power to invade Britain and the merchant marine capacity to supply it's forces if they had landed in Britain. Germany also lacked the specialized ships, landing craft, doctrine and training to pull of a major amphibious assault. In order to pull it off they would have needed to be able to, at least temporarily, establish naval superiority in the channel and air superiority over it. Failing to do so all Germany would control is the bottom of the channel where all their troops and equipment ended up.
One of the basic tenets of amphibious operations is that once a beachead is secured, combat power and supplies must be rapidly built up. How would Germany do this? Would the Royal Navy just stand by and allow cargo and troops to be offloaded? Was the Luftwaffe strong enough to maintain control of the air over the invasion beaches with the RAF coming at them from bases all over the UK. The UK could also rapidly reinforce the point of contact by road and rail with secure lines of communication. Germany's support, and lines of communication lay across the channel and vulnerable to British naval and air assets.

 

OK. "Failure of SeaLion" seems to be a reasonable answer to me.

Technically speaking "Violating the Munich Pact" RESULTED in war being declared... it CANNOT be listed as an answer to "When did Germany lose the war?" because the event occurred PRIOR to the DECLARATION of war. It's an invalid answer.

If one chooses to accept it as a viable answer, then one could say that "Germany lost the war" when Hitler became Chancellor, or when Germany lost WW1, or when they signed the Treaty of Versailles, etc..

Unless the originator of the question being discussed wishes to accept such answers, I must interpret the question to apply only to the time period from Sept. 1, 1939 and on.

Forum members: What say ye?

Of course, we could all take the easy and obvious route, and simply say, "Germany lost the war when they surrendered." LOL

 

19th century's expansion/politics is no certain proof for 20th century policies.

A far fetched assertion, what matters here is that in OTL SU flat out refused to accept such proposal of moving in that direction

Again post war dynamics were different, USA also showed a great deal of interest in that region, so much that they engineered a coup there (Operation Ajax). So, does that mean they would have moved in Iran in that time period (early 40s) without a war.

Of course Iran will get special attention from SU after all its at the Border but the original claim of invasion of Iran in absence of Barbarossa is very off the mark and requires much more evidence to support it..

 

A war that Germany cannot win, before violating the pact it wasn't certain that Britain will fight Germany, after that British weren't going to let Germany violate another nation's integrity and as Germany can't defeat Britain any war started by her is lost.

I don't see any rule by OP regarding this..

Of course one can say that but will have to provide a good deal of reasoning/logic behind it and I don't see much merit in them to call them a pivotal point regarding the war.

Ok, if you wish so, in that time period my answer will be 3rd September when Britain declared war on Germany.

 

fuser - Sept. 3rd? OK! We are making progress here again. Thus, Germany had lost the war the moment it was declared. Fair enough. Thanks.
(Silly Nazis... they got themselves into a hopeless and losing situation!)

PEACE

 

I will just like to add that this answer is only possible with hindsight..

Cheers

 

I don't think so, it was a later date. It depends on how you define "Win". After Dunkirk (4 June 1940) if Germany had decided to consolidate it's gains, continental western europe, and didn't consider defeat of Britain as a condition, she had a win. Britain, without US aid, lacked the resources to retake western europe from the Germans. By 1941 Britain had liquidated so many assets that she lacked the financial ability to build the military power necessary to stage an assault on the continent, other than raids. If Germany had stopped here and the US had not entered the war against Germany she could have retained her spoils. So the date after which she could not have won is sometime later.

 

But there's no reason to think that there will be no US aid??

Germany was willing to consider defeat of Britain not being a major condition for ending the war, but what mattered that Britain was not ready for a peace with Germany until she roll backs all her gains. Furthermore at this point Germany is dangerously dependent on USSR for her war making potential, which puts her in a very exposed position.. UK could wait and watch but this luxury was not for Germany, she had to win the war and win it quick but they didn't had substantial means to achieve this..

 

This is one reason that I originally picked the German declaration of war on the US as the point that Germany could no longer win. With the US in the war it ends in the summer of '45 regardless, as soon as atomic weapons are deployed. Germany did not have to put Britain out of the war. Britain could sit on her home islands in a declared state of war with Germany in perpetuity, as long as she lacked the military capacity to force Germany to roll back her gains. The US, once Japan attacked her, was going to war. The American public would have forced her to focus it's efforts on the Pacific, regardless of what Roosevelt and Churchill wanted, if Germany had sought a non-aggression pact with the US.


I am still up in the air about the Barbarossa date, I really wonder how the war in the east would have turned out without US lend-lease to Britain and the Soviet Union. I don't think a clear win for Germany was in the cards but a stalemate? Who knows.

 

I am not contesting your date, its perfectly viable.

Regarding LL, I am still not sure why it won't happen?? What circumstances could force this??

Beside Germany's hope for victory in east was already hopeless before LL started making an impact on Soviet war effort, (I am not saying that LL was not important) so I don't see any problem with the Barbarossa date either...

Its not just about UK's military capacity but her political and diplomatic capabilities too, also Germany dangerously relies on SU for her war effort which is not a very healthy position for Germany..

Finally I am not sure that A bomb would have been used against Germany or it would have been a game changer without severe mauling of heer in east as well as africa and western europe.

 

Not proof no but certainly an indicator that it could be under consideration which was all that was proposed.

It is hardly far fetched and historically the Soviets did move in that direction shortly after the German attack. Had the western allies gone through with their plans for bombing the Baku oil fields this would have given even more impetous to moving along these lines.

The US reaction was at least in part to Soviet interest in the region was it not? The dynamics may have been different but there's a good chance that it inhibited the actions of the Soviets. Certainly the Soviets showed no hesitation when they considered the conditions right to full filling other pre Soviet Emperial aims.

[qutoe]Of course Iran will get special attention from SU after all its at the Border but the original claim of invasion of Iran in absence of Barbarossa is very off the mark and requires much more evidence to support it..[/QUOTE]
Not really but we've supplied more than enough to show that it was a possiblity and hardly a unlikely one.

 

If Germany even starts making real peace proposals then that is likely to delay US aid. The lack of an attack on the USSR will have a similar effect. It buys time for negotiations to end the war at least.

I'm not sure this is the case. If after the fall of France the Germans offered a peace treaty where they pulled out of Holland, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, and most of France would the British have accepted it? Would they insist on German withdrawl from Poland.

If Germany makes peace with the West that opens up resources from the rest of the world so the exposure drops consideralby. Gemrany still has some serious economic problems but these are delayed for several years. Of course sooner or later the Germans and the Soviets are likely to come to blows but that's a different matter.