What single event contributed most to Germany's defeat in WW2?

[KG_Cloghaun]

Thread is open for discussion-

Enjoy!

[KG_Jag]

My first choice--failure to take Moscow in 1941 is not even listed.

In light of that, I picked BOB because that led Hitler to turn east.

[KG_ThorsHammer]

So many instances of bad choices or bad luck.

Although attacking Russia and the various defeats that eventually took place are in themselves quite bad, I voted for the Battle of Britain as the main cause. The Luftwaffe was shredded and never recovered with production and new pilots/crew running at low ebb until too late. But worst of all, Hitler left an unsubdued enemy and started a two front war. Had Great Britain been defeated, The USA would have had no allies to come to the aid of.
This would have allowed the Germans to leave but a skeleton security force behind, while the bulk of the Army, airforce and navy focused on Barbarrosa.
There would have been little to stop the Axis from entering the middle east and obtaining lots of oil supplies. The Russians would probably be alone, and even if the USA sided with them, it would be a long time before US forces would be in any kind of shape to help them; by then it would probably be too late.

[KG_Koz]

The Germans needed to win the BOB to clean up the W front before dealing with the Soviet Union.

[KG_CrimsonTrooper]

If they would have fortifed Normandy like his Generals wanted as well released the Panzers when they were first summoned D-Day would have been a back breaking defeat for the Allied Nations.

[KG_Zulu_5]

Creating an Eastern Front (a.k.a. The Eastern Blitz). Germany should have learned their lesson in the first world war.


OR


Starting the war in 1939 when German arms production were not even close to adequate.

Pick your poison

[KG_Panzerschreck]

My first choice would of been "Attacking Russia in the first place". Something i feel they shouldnt of done until England was taken care of.

In lieu of that i picked Stalingrad.

[KG_Kharkov]

I agree with Schreck -- "Attacking Russia" would be number 1, but I picked Operation Bagration. The entire destruction of Army Group Centre irrevocably sealed the fate of Germany. Had that been avoided Germany still held the hope of negotiating some sort of peace short of unconditional surrender with the West. That's all hypothetical since the West's policy was one of unconditional surrender, but I doubt the West would even have considered using an A-bomb in Europe. A stalemate through the end of 45 in Europe could have changed the tide of political views regarding a negotiated piece (aka similar to the Treaty of Versailles). I guess I've rephrased the question since in my scenario (where Bagration doesn't occur) Germany still loses, but it's quite possibly a different type of loss.

As to what battle of those listed could have changed the ultimate outcome of the war, I'd say Stalingrad. If Germany had cancelled it's drive on the Caucuses oil fields and it's drive on Leningrad and renewed it's focus on a single knockout blow of Moscow in 1942, it may forced Russia to the bargaining table. Committing to Stalingrad forever changed the face of the Eastern Front and drained precious manpower from the German military.

[Full Monty]

Of those listed I have to go for 'Bagration'. It effectively destroyed any hope the Germans may have had of stalemating the Red Army or being able to transfer enough men and equipment to the West to counter the Allied forces in Normandy.

However, none of those listed were decisive. In my opinion the failure to put the German economy onto a war footing until the course of the war had already turned against the Axis was fatal. It meant that for most of the war the equipment the German armed forces had was available in neither the quality nor the quantity that was required to wage the kind of war they were engaged in.

[KG_Noggs]

I would have to say the Normandy Landings, because it basicaly let the Allies have a stronghold from which to conduct operations from, and bring supplies in. If Germany(Hitler) would have released the Panzers the outcome might have been different for the Allies.

[KG_Norad]

I am with Jag in that I would have liked to have seen the failure to take Moscow as a choice. Even if this was a choice with the way the Germans were treating the Russians, the way they were sending virtually all food and natural resources back to Germany, and with the historic annimosity between the two I don't think even Moscow would have mattered in the long run. Perhaps it would have only postponed the inevitable. Perhaps creating a harder time on the West front for the Allies.

So given the choices given on the poll I went with Kursk. Not that this battle was a catastrophic loss in and of itself but I think it went a long way in depleting what little strength the Germans had left. Had they pulled back in an orderly manner without wasting themselves on a fruitless battle perhaps they could have dug in to fight the russians tooth and nail closer to home.

I must say though very good comments one and all. Some excellent points!

[KG_AGCent]

I went with Stalingrad as it led not only to 90,000 captured but also in the neighborhood of 500,000 casualties. Manpower desperately needed to stem the red tide.

[KG_Soldier]

Well, since it's open for discussion, I might have something to say on the matter. I picked Stalingrad, but really, I think the decision to take the Caucasus and use Stalingrad as basically a blocking position for Army Group A instead of using their full force to block the Volga, thus crippling the Russians by forcing oil and such back through central Russia through like Uzbekistan (sp), doomed the Germans to eventual defeat. Hoth's 4th Panzer Army and the 6th Army were simply not enough to hold the Russians off or even completely take Stalingrad. If the main German goal had been to cut the Volga in '42 and then take the Caucasus in '43, it MIGHT have worked. Hitler's Fuhrer Directive No. 41, dated 5 April 1942 says it all:

"all available forces will be concentrated on the main operations in the Southern sector, with the aim of destroying the enemy before the Don, in order to secure the Caucasian oil fields and the passes through the Caucasian mountain themselves."
H.R. Trevor-Roper, "Hitlers War Directives," p. 117

This much smaller task than Barbarrossa proved even too much for the depleated German Army. Of course if Romania, Hungary, and Italy had had real armies, then....

[KG_Cloghaun]

Sorry I didn't list more choices. I picked the obvious ones that came to mind. The failure to take Moscow in 41' is one that should've been listed.

I went with Stalingrad. Blocking off the Volga (as Soldier suggested) then trying for Moscow the following year would've been a distinct possibility. Ofcourse, it suggests that the Germans would make the right choices in between. In a broader context I firmly believe the eastern front dictated the entire course of the war for Germany.

In any event, the poll is too abstract to be taken totally seriously. There are too many variables involved with any choice made, therefore I do not believe any of the choices are wrong answers. Had any of them had their outcomes reversed, it would've prolonged the war considerably. The German surrender at Tunisia for example. 150,000 seasoned German veterans. Over 100,000 Italians. Think of what use they could've been put to. The Germans could've been used to strengthen the westwall defenses, or used as reserves in the east, while the Italians could've slowed the pace on their own homeland. Numerous applications could've been applied.

Had Goering been successful at the Battle of Britian, your talking about being able to transfer over 60 divisions to the east.

Fun poll anyways. Glad to see people take an interest.

[Full Monty]

A couple of excellent books to read for those interested whether the Axis powers stood a chance of winning the war are:-

'Brute Force' by John Ellis
'Why the Allies Won' by Richard Overy

Both present well thought out arguments which you may or may not agree with - they don't agree with each other incidentally - but are essential reading for anyone interested in strategy in WW2.

[KG_Panzerschreck]

And here is another - "Disaster at D-Day" by Peter Tsouras. A very good book written in a context about how the Germans "won" D-Day. All based on historical units and "what if" scenarios, such as, what if Hitler released the Panzer Divisions when his Generals wanted him to, Ect... All firmly based in reality and things that easily could of happened, the author writes a gripping story on how the Germans turn the Allies back in France.