WWII: Germany's Greatest defeat: Your opinion?

WWII: Germany's Greatest Defeat - Your opinion


  • Total voters
    124
I went with Moscow 1941 because:

(1) the Russian front was where WW2 would be won or lost for the Germans, and

(2) Germany needed to knock the USSR out as early as possible, both to the maintain the impression of blitzkrieg invincibility and avoid a long war of attrition with the USSR they couldn't win.

The BOB next, if it can be assumed complete German victory in the air war would have forced England to sue for peace - otherwise it didn't really affect the long term chance of German victory.

By 1943, it's a given Germany was going to lose. Kursk, Stalingrad, Overlord, the Ardennes, etc just helped nail the coffin shut as another poster said.
 
By and large, it is then accepted wisdom that Russia broke the back of Germany. Not too surprising.

As mentioned, it was in the East the war would be won or lost.

So far, so good.

If we try to define the "watershed" i.e. the moment where general agreement is achieved in the greater population, Stalingrad must be the one.

According to Werth, the mood before Stalingrad was one of continuous disasters (even the Moscow counter-attacks did not remove the fear that it could still go wrong for USSR).

Stalingrad put new enthusiasm into USSR where, according to Werth, the general feeling was that the war could be won.

The same on the German side: the feeling that the war was lost after Stalingrad.

Could Germany possible have turned the tide after Stalingrad? maybe. But if the population at large is starting to lose faith in it? near impossible.


It is probably also correct to say that anything from Kursk was putting the nails in the coffin. Although significant (Lower Dnieper was the most costly defeat) victories were ahead, the outcome was not in doubt.

It is an interesting game to try to find the "watershed' in these affairs.

Take South Africa as an example: the riots in 1976 were NOT the watershed. The general feeling was very much that it could continue. The watershed was 1984 with the State of Emergency. Then everybody realised it was over and only a matter of time.

Vietnam: Watershed = Tet offensive?

WWI: Watershed = Cambrai?

Ivan
 
I would vote Kursk prior to this discussion, but there are many good reason to choose something earlier. That is surely coming out of this discussion.

It is interesting to see that the concensus is tipping towards declaring that USSR "won the war".

The W Allies contribution is diminishing a bit with this discussion going, it seems.

I had a thought of putting up:
Battle of Atlantic
Torch
Tunisia
Bombing of Germany

However, I did not see the significance compared to Stalingrad, Bagration, Kursk etc.

Not necessarily in losses but in significance.

None of the above W Allies victories doomed Germany in itself - as far as I can see.

Anybody having an opinion on that?

Ivan
 
Voted Moscow. The soviet counter-offensive showed that Germany was not invincible and that the Soviet's were still a fighting force.
 
I voted for the Battle of Moscow and the subsequent Soviet counter attack. Germany's only chance to defeat the Soviet Union was within the first 6 months.

The 1942 German offensive was simply designed to capture oil fields so that the Third Reich could continue the war in the medium term and hopefully damage the Soviet war effort.
 
I love the AH... From here you can hear many voices and can get more un-biased scenario.

I voted for Moskow.
Moskow was point were who will win war.
 
IMO, Germany's only hope of winning in the east was to 1) plan, organize and execute a better, multi-year Barbarossa, and 2) deal enough early damage to cause the Soviet system to collapse (including, but not limited to death of Stalin; loss of Moscow as the center of all planning activity; large-scale yet misguided support by the local population(s) for the nazis; reduced access to lend-lease)

IMO, any glimmer of hope to achieve this was lost in front of Moscow, and so I voted for that.

All of the others wouldn't have brought them anything other than a somewhat prolonged war at best.
 
Voted for stalingrad. But could voted for any of these - in a manner of speaking, every one of them was somehow a great defeat, either numerically or by the consequences (or combined).
 
Of Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad each were equal in different ways. Germany could have could stood a chance of winning if it took at least one of them. Failing to take one should count as a defeat.
 
Moscow is less important as a victory because it merely represented the total failure of Barbarossa. Barbarossa had already failed by November 1941; at Smolensk, at Leningrad, at Tikhvin, and at Rostov. Moscow was merely the Germans reinforcing failure in a spectacular manner. Barbarossa had been failing since July; Moscow merely showed how badly. By Fall 1941 German success was impossible.
 
Last edited:
Voted Moscow. The soviet counter-offensive showed that Germany was not invincible and that the Soviet's were still a fighting force.

I voted Bagration. After Moscow and Stalingrad Germany still launched offensives in the east. After Bagration, stick a fork in 'em, they were done.
 
I went with Moscow 1941 because:

(1) the Russian front was where WW2 would be won or lost for the Germans, and

(2) Germany needed to knock the USSR out as early as possible, both to the maintain the impression of blitzkrieg invincibility and avoid a long war of attrition with the USSR they couldn't win.

I chose Moscow too, using the same rationale.

I do wonder what a credible Germany victory at Moscow looks like though - do they have the strength to take and hold Moscow long enough to cause sufficient political and economic dislocation to make the war in the east winnable?

Some of the stuff I've read here suggests that they could have got into Moscow, but then would have got bogged down and pocketed by the Siberian reserves. If that's the case, then it implies that Moscow may be an unwinnable battle, and I'm slightly uncomfortable about regarding a battle in which defeat is pretty much inevitable as one of grand strategic significance... :confused:
 
I voted Moscow '41 but frankly the US/UK bombing campaign should probably be on the list. Without that the Germans would have had thousands of additional 88 and 128mm guns that work perfectly well as AT guns to use on the Eastern front. Plus over a million additional troops that were tied down in air-defense duties. Even half of that would make a huge difference in 1943/44 if the air-campaign was not in progress.
 
Bagration. Ripped a 200 mile hole in the German line and destroyed 28 German divisions. The transfer of most of the Panzer Divisions from Army Group South led directly to the loss of the key Roumanian olfields and the defection of that country to the Allies. Came close to a Hungarian defection as well. The Russian Front never really stabilized after the summer of 1944.. Ended any slight chance teGermans might still have had to fight the Red Army to a standstill alhough, with the Allies securely ashore in NMormandy by the end of June 1944 Germany had irretrievably lost the war in Europe at this point
 
I's also propose Smolensk as a strategic defeat is possible. While materially a total German victory, it proved so costly and delayed AGC for so long that the Barbarossa plan had to be given up entirely. A direct advance against Moscow was no longer possible, and thus AGC was halted and it's resources used to assist North and South. This in turn set the stage for the German defeats in November-December.

Moscow was certainly a major defeat, but only in terms of how it bled the Heer white to a greater extent than previous battles. Strategically the battle was unwinnable, and Barbarossa had been defeated in July at Smolensk.
 
Top