The Most Devastating Event to Nazi Germany

i’ve gotta go with the Battle of Britain here. Hitler had his sights right to start with but then changed them at a critical moment. the Luftwaffe had crippled the RAF near to the point of defeat, but then Hitler ordered the transitioning of his attacks to civilian targets far from the RAF airfields. Thus giveing the RAF much needed time to recuperate and retake the skies. by doing this, Hitler allowed massive Air losses to the British and gave them ample time to construct defenses against the impending Sealion.

And yet I would argue SeaLion would never have succeeded anyway. If you compare D-Day to SeaLion you can see the level of commitment and support needed for such a large amphib operation to succeed. Of course Germany did not have this.

And yet I would argue SeaLion would never have succeeded anyway. If you compare D-Day to SeaLion you can see the level of commitment and support needed for such a large amphib operation to succeed. Of course Germany did not have this.

Yes, I would totally agree with you here. Whether you can then infer that the Germans were never serious about Sealion as a result is another matter but I would agree that the level of ‘amateurism’ compared to Allied preparations for D-Day indicate a collossal defeat waiting on the other side of the Channel.
As for North Africa being a ‘sideshow’ Agent Smith……I’m not so sure. In Axis and Allies yes it can be ignored because it is pretty much irrelevant. But in the war…as someone said most of the Italian army was committed to Africa and its large Navy was of course Med based thus seriously challenging Britains’ links with India. Whatever your opinion as to italian quality their destruction helped pull Italy out of the war thus obliging German forces to defend against another front. (Italian engineers were also well ahead of others in jet-engine research. Another good reason to knock Italy out of the war. Which of course was begun through africa.)
It also allowed Torch to take place (thus giving a good dress rehearsal for D-Day and showing how well the Allies could co-operate in a combined arms op.) It also checked German ambitions in Iraq and Syria which thus checking an attempt to widen the war.
It was also, along with strategic bombing, the only place the British could challenge the axis on the ground until the war became global with Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor.
North Africa irrelevant? Come off it!

Of course you’d say that you’re English. The fact is that NAfrica represents the only theater of the war in which the Brits had any unilateral success so of course they feel it is the most important, but clearly it wasn’t. You forget that it was in Russia where Germany based the majority of its armed forces. Italy-10 divisions, France 20-30 depending on the time, Russia-200+. Needless to say that at the height of the war in 1943-44 the Germans had over 75% of their forces committed against Russia. Had the Brits faced the Germans one on one they would have had no chance. If the Americans and Brits had faced the bulk of the German army in France assuming they hadn’t gone to war with Russia it would’ve taken a long time to bring down the third reich, and a situation like that in WWI may have developed. So I stand by what I said before, had the Germans not gone to war with the Americans or Russians then at some point they could’ve forced peace on the remaining powers. For example, if Barbarossa never happens then the sub campaign in the Atlantic may have succeeded in forcing the capitulation of the English without invasion of Britain being needed, and once the Uk backs out of the war there would’ve been no reason for the Germans to go to war with the US.

Hitler could have at least doubled the size of his army if he had not been so strong on his racism, not just the Jews but also Russian POW’s (some of whom did fight) and Slavs and other occupied countries.

If HItler had carried out Sealion it would have been instead of Russia (or at least stalling it for a few years).

Sea Lion wouldn’t have worked either way. Britian has a vast supply of men to draw upon from Canada what they really lacked in the first few years was equipment such as guns, ammo, tanks etc. However, years down the road this would have been lessened.

As for using POWs to fight they would never have done that because it is a clear violation of international law which the Germans obeyed religiously but for a few exceptions. Their atrocities came in areas they thought were grey areas they thought they could exploit. Additionally, the Germans could never have used Jews to fight, first the entire regime was built on Anti-Semitism and more importantly Anti-Semitism directed at Bolshevik Russia. An often heard complaint of Communism by the Nazis was that the Bolsheviks were pawns of a greater Jewish conspiracy.

@MuthaRussia:

And F_alk,
Vergebung mein, fur ichsein mude! :-?
"Forgive me, For i was tired!
…Hope i wrote that right! :-?

Not at all :)

Vergebung gewährt unter der Bedingung, daß du nicht mehr versuchst, Deutsch zu sprechen, bis du ein weiteres Jahr Untericht genossen hast.

They could have built the regime without anti-semitism, indeed histrians have discovered that on the whole that was the least attractive aspect of Nazism to the German people.

No way. The nazi’s were successful because of deep long seeding anti-semitism in Germany. However, this was not unique to Germany though as it existed in France, Spain, and Italy as well. I would be very interested to see some links to the historians you refer to or books they’ve written because I would take issue with their conclusions just on face. The Nazi party was not that different from the dozens of partys that developed in post war Germany that preached the doctrine of Germany got screwed at Versailles lets undo it by force if needed. The main difference between the Nazis and everyone else was they claimed the German people were ‘stabbed in the back’ by the Jewish people especially the Bolshevik Communists/Socialists which were the cause for the revolution and thus Germany’s defeat.

Yes as for example take the Norwegian constetution from 1814… it states that no jew is to be allowed acess to Norway… Anti-semitism is rooted in far more countries then just the ones you mentioned.

exactly. Hitler could not have risen to power without anti-semitism. the jews were his scapegoat, which he used to unite the german people around him, and support his actions. after he took power though, he probably could have stopped the anti-semitism when they went to war, because by that time, the german public’s focus had shifted off of the jews.

Except this presupposes that Hitler and the Nazi elite were not very anti-semetic which they were. It’s really easy to say they could’ve stopped, but remember that at the time America had Jim Crow laws. If we’d begun to lose the war would we have abandoned Jim Crow in order to win. I really don’t think so. In fact, during the first 6-12 months of the war we were losing yet there wasn’t any great call to put black soldiers side by side with their white brothers. We kept Black soldiers in a lesser and subservient position because it fitted our social needs at the time. The same was absolutely true with Germany.

As for Sorte you’re absolutely right, but in Germany it was always a bit more virulent. I attribute this to the great antagonism that has historically existed between the slavs and germanic peoples and unfortunately jews got lumped in all the same. However, the example you provided of Norway is good, but lets not forget that one of the reason relatively few French or Italian jews died in the holocaust was because Spain, Franch and Italy all had inquisitions whose intent was to drive the jews from Europe. In fact the inquisition in Italy and Spain was still legally sanctioned although not in reality.

@i_killed_mufasa:

They could have built the regime without anti-semitism, indeed histrians have discovered that on the whole that was the least attractive aspect of Nazism to the German people.

I have read that as well.

@AgentSmith:

No way. The nazi’s were successful because of deep long seeding anti-semitism in Germany.

Untrue

However, this was not unique to Germany though as it existed in France, Spain, and Italy as well.

True

The Nazi party was not that different from the dozens of partys that developed in post war Germany that preached the doctrine of Germany got screwed at Versailles lets undo it by force if needed. The main difference between the Nazis and everyone else was they claimed the German people were ‘stabbed in the back’ by the Jewish people especially the Bolshevik Communists/Socialists which were the cause for the revolution and thus Germany’s defeat.

Half true.

The Nazis were successful because the economic crisis was ending, the efforts done by the last “democratic” chancellor were taking effect, and they were reducing unemployment by state actions and enterprises (mainly using plans of that last deomcratic chancellor).
Also, they were successful because the democracy never was really strong and embedded in the society. From start on (!) the legend of the “stab in the back” (which is the armies back!) was around. A social democrat actually “started” it, directly after the armistice, where he said to soliders that the “armies were unbeaten in the field”.
So, the democrats had to sign the Versaille treaty (a clever move by the right wing militarists who were responsible for the situation), and thus the birth of the Weimar Republic coul not be worse. The right wing always had revisionists thoughts, the Reichswehr was not allowed to be a conscript army, thus turned into a “state within the state” under control of the right wing militarists.
The last part of the success of the Nazis is the following: the right wing was for long dominated by the old “imperial” elites, aristocrats and such.
By them, the Nazis were seen as a bunch of uneducated wild men. After some internal power struggle in the old right wing (following the last “emocratic” chancellor, who ruled by presidential emergency decrees, there were two “classic” right wing chancellors, ruling the same way)…
one of the “winners” in that struggle convinced the old President (Hindenburg, the WWI hero) that they should “engage” Hitler and his NSDAP, flank him with “classic” right wing ministers and thus use him.
Unfortunately, they gave him two minister posts, one of them being the minister of the interior. That - and the following (last) election - destroyed the right wings dream of “taming” Hitler, and he took full control.
(A last point of Hitlers success is that the Versaille treaties punishment ended during his time… with part of that being negotiated earlier, but of cours propaganda changed that impression). As well, there was a strong fear in large parts of the population that “bolsheviks” could take over, and only a strong man could halt them. Hitlers success was mainly based on his support by the “petty bourgeois”, and all who feared that they would lose even more by the economic crisis.

So, there was a “stab in the back”, but it was not a “Nazi-only” doctrine, but common in the whole right wing, and quite accepted in the population.

@Janus1:

exactly. Hitler could not have risen to power without anti-semitism. the jews were his scapegoat, which he used to unite the german people around him, and support his actions. after he took power though, he probably could have stopped the anti-semitism when they went to war, because by that time, the german public’s focus had shifted off of the jews.

Untrue. They were his scapegoat, but as i_killed_musafa said, that was a point that was more a “minus” in the eyes of part of the population (esp. the educated and elites): Jews fought for Germany in WWI, Germany was proud of culture and had no place for “barbarians”…
but most considered the anti-semitism as something they had to take (and that the situation would turn “normal” again, once the Nazis had (not only gained but) secured the power). They thought that this “evil” was the lesser one compared to the economic rise and the “good things” that Hitler achieved in their eyes.

@MuthaRussia:

Was it understandable?
I think i’m forgetting to put the verbs at the beginning!

It was as understandable as “Romanes eunt domus”. And please: don’t put the verbs at the beginning. Instead, conjugate them properly :) … and don’t translate too literally: “Für” is only a preposition, while “for” is also a conjunction (that’s how you used it in that sentence). And third, if you don’t have the Umlaute on your keyboard (like ä,ö,ü), substitute them by adding an “e”: ä -> ae, ö -> oe, ü-> ue. The “ß” can be replaced by a “ss”.

@F_alk:

Also, they were successful because the democracy never was really strong and embedded in the society. From start on (!) the legend of the “stab in the back” (which is the armies back!) was around. A social democrat actually “started” it, directly after the armistice, where he said to soliders that the “armies were unbeaten in the field”.
So, the democrats had to sign the Versaille treaty (a clever move by the right wing militarists who were responsible for the situation), and thus the birth of the Weimar Republic coul not be worse. The right wing always had revisionists thoughts, the Reichswehr was not allowed to be a conscript army, thus turned into a “state within the state” under control of the right wing militarists.
quote]

True but neither was the British for that part… they were still imperialistic in there ways which shines out in the treaty…
forcing a growing imperialist nation to disband it’s navy, army and colonies, not to include stealing most of there infrastructure for your use in expansion(becoming the largest empire the world had ever seen) on the part of the british and the French was not correct at Versaille… That could be stated as a cause for WW2…

GG