Most people claim that operation barbarossa was the deathknell for germany. IMHO that is not the case, the outcome was decided in may of 1941 when the german fallshirmjagers invaded the wrong island. As you all know, they invaded crete. This was a serious strategic blunder. These precious troops shouldve been used in an invasion of malta. This wouldve cut the med. in 2 and free'd up germany for an airborne invasion of iraq. Here with more oil, and onthe southern border of russia, they coulve taken the caucases at the onset of barbarossa and all but end the war in the east. Your thoughts?

__________________

I think its impossible to pt it down to one thing. Rather it was several things that lost the war for Germany. firstly, you could blame the Italian disaters in Greece and North Africa. If this ha not happened, then Germany would not have had to get involved. This caused the invasion of Russia to be pput back one month, plus the lss of the men and machines, especially the transport aircraft loist at Crete. Then there was the changing by Hitler of the main efort. He should have stuck wih Moscow from the start, instead of switching forces from one front to another.There was also mistakes made in the war against Britain, and all these need to be added together.

__________________
'England confides that every man will do his duty' Nelson
'I'm a Norfolk man, and glory in being so' Nelson

Proud to be a GRUNT

Do not agree.

To secure the Eastern Mediterranean and retire the British menace of the Balkans, Crete had to be invaded. And you should know that there were plans to invade Malta. Hitler and Kesselring had already gave green light to proceed. But then marshall Rommel told them that it was not necessary, that he could take Alexandria and end everything quicker. It was wrong from Kesselring to listen to that, because the Centre of the Mediterranean had to be Brit-free, so the supplies could reach Africa without any problems. Taking Malta, the supplies would have reached Rommel entirely and then and only then he could have advanced into El Alamein, Alexandria, El Cairo, Suez, Jerusalem, Bagdad, etc. Just then. And I doubt he could have gone too far and even if he could have, List could not reach Iran. Crete was an important strategic victory for us, but it is a pity that such victories were wasted. Hitler never took the advantages of having the Eastern Mediterranean.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Friedrich makes a point. Both islands had to be taken because either one could be used as a base to interrupt the flow of supplies to N. Africa. But not taking Malta did not lose the war for Germany. It only lost N. Africa.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

I don't think its so much where Germany lost the war, but why IMHO they did lose. It was basically a circle. Germany invaded Russia-it could have been a successful venture, but they were too busy in other theatres trying to be like the old Caesars. Instead they shouldve concentrated on one area and then branched out.
I think that Germany lost the war whey got personal with Britain. Instead of bombing London,Coventry and basically just conducting terror raids on England, they should have kept the pressure on RAF Fighter Command and tehn launched 'Sealion'-this move wouldve shown the world that Hitler meant business and would have kept opposition down.
Hitler just wanted to be vicious, not strategic.

__________________
"GARRY OWEN"-Traditional war-cry of the US 7th Cavalry.
"CURRAHEE"-War-cry of the US 506th PIR.
"Everybody thinks that they are going to get the chance to punch some Nazi in the face at Normandy-and those days are over, they are long gone"-Lt Chris Burnett

'Sealion' was never really 'on'. An opposed seabourne invasion is one of war's most difficult challenges. One only has to consider the preparation that went into D-Day and, even without the Luftwaffe to worry about, that was a close-run thing. A few converted Rhine barges wouldn't have done the trick, and as for paratroops, think of Crete...

No, Germany needed a swift moral and political collapse in Britain ( similar to France ). Without Churchill , who knows? It may just have happened.

This whole, much-argued question of the Battle of Britain and Sealion's place in history has been superbly examined in Stephen Bungay's recent book, 'The Most Dangerous Enemy' which I'd highly recommend to anyone interested in the BofB 'myth'.

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

"Seelöwe" was in no way similar to "Overlord" except that the RAF and the Luftwaffe must have been swept of the skies in both cases. But Great Britain had no strong coastal defences, nor well trained or well equiped troops to make a counter attack. In Overlord we had not excellent, but good coastal defences, but we have Panzerlehr, Hitlejugend and Das Reich behind the beaches, etc. Great Britain was in no-way prepared to bear an invasion in 1940. I have no doubts they would have fought tremendously well, as patriots and ancient warriors they are. And as Martin said, they had a good leader to keep their morale up as we did. The lack of a strong government in France was one of the major reasons for the fall. It was not the case of my beloved Groß Britanien! (Well, it is like our sister... ) But brothers always fight...

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Weak, undoubtedly. But first, the Germans had to cross that 20 miles of water....

I'll quote from Bungay's book, because he looks at the proposed operation in depth : -

'The best that can be said for Sealion is that it was a terrible gamble. Everything had to go right ; the three ( German ) services had to co-operate very closely, the RAF had to be neutralised, the Royal Navy had to be deterred... and the weather had to be benign. The river barges taking the troops across were to be towed in pairs by tugs and could make about three knots. They would be swamped by anything more than a light swell. Only a decisive victory in the air could have given Sealion any prospect of success.'

And, as seen so graphically in 'SPR',even if they'd made it, just a few machineguns on a beach can make a terrible mess.

And finally, maybe surprisingly to today's world, a lot of people in this country would have 'had a go' out of sheer stubbornness. It's an attitude of mind probably best summed up by the legendary Group Captain Douglas Bader in highly 'politically-incorrect' language when he said : -

'Suddenly I was angry. Who the Hell do these Huns think they are , flying like this in their bloody bombers covered with iron crosses and swastikas over our country ?'

He said that, not me ! But it gives a good indication of contemporary feelings in 1940. And maybe this is what Hitler underestimated by hoping to 'come to terms' with people as 'unreasonable' as the British !

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Yes, it was a very, very risky gamble. But we are very good improvising... The tricky part was puting the men and the tanks into the beaches, once done this, everything was easy.

And yes, we both, as brother-people, brother-nations, we both are great, stubborn, pride, warrior nations...

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Both as arrogant as each other, I think you mean, Friedrich . . . . !!

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

G'day

When the Germans let the BEF escape to England they made the first "mistake". Then having to clear up for the Italians and thus getting involved into too many fronts. Going to the Russian front when not fully ready. The U boat forces geting to their maximum strength in 1941. Hitlers involvement in strategic decisions that made the Germans fight heroic, but in vain where a strategic retreat would hae been better. Maybe because Hitler was vegitarian??? Too many reasons to mention.

Popski

__________________
Wenn ist das Nunstrück git und Slotermeyer? Ja!.. Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
Monty Python's Killing Joke

First off, greetings to all from a new member. From what I've read so far, there are some really intelligent and interesting points of view here coming from some informed historians. Kudos! Hopefully I can contribute!

On the "where Germany lost" debate, I'd have to take the classic company line- invading Russia was the beginning of the end. (I am definetely biased- the Russian Front is my specialty!) Simply in the logistics of it, Germany could not have defeated russia, no matter what. The amounts of fuel and materials needed to succeed in russia, and more important, to maintain that success, simply were not available to Germany. Taking moscow in 41 would have been a blow to the russians, but only a setback.
Its my opinion that the other theaters and the other blunders Germany made served really to speed up the russian victory...
The Battle of Britian would probably be an exception... Had the Germans defeated the British, that may have seriously (understatement!) affected the outcome...

Only my humble opinion!

__________________
Seriously, all today is missing is free cotton candy and the annual Bay State Hooker Parade to make it any better.

Welcome crazy. Hope you enjoy your stay.

Yo say that Germany cold have taken Mosow, and on this i agree. As for the rest, i guess it would have depened on what happened next. But, having secured a line that far, would not the secured raw materials that Germany would have secured, along with all the land, have helped alot. I believe one big istake inRussia was the harsh treatment meated out to he Slavs. As many of these welcomed the Germans as liberators, had the Germastreated them well, intead of us the Sub-Humans the Nazis saw them as, this could have made a difference

__________________
'England confides that every man will do his duty' Nelson
'I'm a Norfolk man, and glory in being so' Nelson

Proud to be a GRUNT

Hallo!

Wilkommen, Narr! (Welcome, crazy!) We hope to see you around oftenly.

There is no doubt, as we have discussed that we could have defeated Britain totally in autumn 1940, and partially in 1941 and 1942 with the combined attacks of Rommel and Dönitz.

The Soviet Union could have been smashed in 1941 with "Barbarossa", with the fall of Moscow and the destruction of several Soviet armies inside in the battle. But still that way, even if the communist state would have collapsed, we needed a large amount of troops which we did not have to occupy the territory and certainly, our despective treatment to the Russians did not help. You can see that it was an important thing to do, because in the Caucasus and Southern Ukraine, Ewald von Kleist ordered his troops to be as kind as possible with the people. Therefore, there were not partisan gangs and they people colaborated with Von Kleist. But we could have achieved some other victories in 1942, after the solidification of the front in winter. Even with all the industry and resources behind the Urals, the Russians could not have throw us away from Moscow and other positions for several reasons: with the government collapsed, the Red Army would have not had good cohesion, the main communication centre of the country would have been in the enemy's hands, and we know how all the counter attacks (with Moscow, Stalin and coordinated) performed in 1942... But I think as well, that it would have been enormously difficult to push far more beyond the Urals, even with Great Britain defeated...

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Welcome Crazy! I look forward to your posts on Russia. What you point out is my thoughts as well.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

Hello Crazy and alot of folks I hang with feel Germany lost the war after Stalingrad and or possibly Kursk.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

Leeters from home......As my cousins mentioned in their journals while on the Ost Front, "We the German army were involved on to many fronts" ......yes, Russia could of been defeated but it wasn't. Both of them died, one in action the other returning on the roads from Russia from a Gulag in the 50's......

E

Sorry to hear of your cousins, Erich. The one thing that unites all wars- people die who should have. Seems that world leaders always seem to forget that part. The quote in PzJgr's sig sums it up pretty well...

And thanks to all for the welcome! I'm already thoroughly enjoying the forum!
Friedrich, very good points. I do agree that if the germans had taken moscow, it would have put the whole of the russian military into disarray. However, even considering this, I think the russians would have been able to recover before the germans could fully take advantage of the victory. One of the things that always gets me is looking at a map... While it would have been a significant victory for the Germans to have taken moscow, look at how much of Russia remains... wow! Also, we need to remember that by the time german forces reached moscow, the majority of russian heavy industry had already been moved to the urals, giving the russians even more breathing room...

On Stalingrad and Kursk (my sub-specialty), I would categorize both of those battles as examples of the impossible task the Germans had. The russians could simply overwhelm the germans with men and material. Of course, both those battles were also prime examples of Hitler's complete incompetence as a military planner...

__________________
Seriously, all today is missing is free cotton candy and the annual Bay State Hooker Parade to make it any better.

Well, carzy. Nice points you have.

But let me tell you what Stephen Walsh says in his book "Stalingrad, the hellish sorrounding": 'Hitler was not the brilliant commander he thought he was, but he was not either as dump as other says he was". His general strategic thoghts were not bad, but when he put his nose into minor details, he was incompetent, because he did not have all the military and logistics knowledge needed.

There are certainly 20.000 kilommetres left of Russia to conquest and some 15.000.000 square kilommetres to occupy. It is impossible. Indeed, all the Soviet heavy industry was rapidly and efitiently carried 3.000 kilommetres away from the front. And it was a large industry, with a lot of men and natural resources left to support the war effort. But my point is that after the fall of Moscow, Leningrad and Rostov would have fallen also, because of the temporary shock and desorganisation. Then all the front could be reinforced and grow in strenght. In the other hand, without Moscow as a communication centre, without the cohesion that Stalin's government provided and with a very low morale for the fall of the capital, the regime and a tremendous military defeat in military therms... a counter attack would have been very difficult to perform. and even if performed, it would have been repeled. So, it was probable that the Western of the Soviet Union would have been totally smashed and a German victory woud have occured, bujt only partially. Because just the Western part of the country would have been on German hands. Well, this part is the most important part of the country, but it is just the 10% of the country... So, if all this would have happened: the Western USSR defeated and several counter attacks repelled, the Eastern part of the USSR would have asked for an armistice and define the Urals as a border. Of course, during these times, Eastern Soviet Union would have reinforce, and reinforce to counter attack some day... Now, do you get my points?

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Gosh it's getting hot again here in southern Oregon. CrazyD, it is part of life. My German relatives have a very deep love for their Heimat, and always have, and they fought for their copuntry, none of this Nazi crap that still associates many veterans and their families. I come from a familie of very old origins.......I also lost 2 other cousins in the Luftwaffe, none of these I have ever met, only stories and several documents copied for my files.

would love to debate the Kursk battles with you. Some very interesting documentation has been translated from the German, just this last 2/3 years so it may give some interesting glimpses of what really happened from the Wehrmacht's point of view.....glad you're aboard ! I do know that friend Carl Evans will love to hear info from your database concerning Stalingrad and I am sure Paul Erras as well.

E

Yet more good points, Friedrich. Still, I think, with all due respect, I would still disagree on a few.
I have not read Walsh's book, but I would have to disagree on Hitler. My take on his military abilities is this- from everything I have read, Hitler would only concern himself with minute details. His plan for Kursk, for example, was simply to cut off the salient. When he met with his generals to discuss the upcoming battle, the meetings generally would concentrate on something like engaging the T-34 using a specific tactic. He would brush off concerns about the battle as a whole (concerns which need to be addressed by the overall commander), and only concentrate on minute details better left to battalion commanders. In other words, you point out his incompetence in minor details; I would propose that those minor details were the only thing Hitler addressed.

Also, more good points on Moscow. But again, in the spirit of good historical debate, I would have to disagree on a couple. First off, I don't think Stalins command structure would have fallen apart had moscow been defeated for one main reason- until early 42, Stalin really didn't have any command structure to have fall apart! It wasn't really until after Stalingrad that the russian army began to develop a more cohesive and functional structure.
And here's my other point- you refer to the Germans conquering the western part of Russia, which I agree that they could have done. However, you follow up with (a very logical point) the germans and russians declaring an armistice- unfortunately for the germans, Hitler was anything but logical on this topic. He viewed the war in russia as a crusade against bolshevism. I don't believe he ever would have propos