My thesis is Hitler should not have invaded Stalin that early. Instead Hitler should have focused on defeating the British in Africa and the Middle East to 1) cut off British supply lines to its colonies and 2) wrest control of African and Middle Eastern oil fields, which would have forced...
Actually Germany could easily have provided more resources to its Afrika Corps had it not commit itself to Barbarossa. The most important clue is on Rommel's continued badgering to the High command for more supplies. It means infrastructures were not the issue, the problem were the matrials...
An interesting fact I just learned about WW2 was that in the latter part of that war the Americans put into service an ice cream barge, which was a cement barge converted to make ice cream for US servicemen in the Pacific. Now, you know you're winning a war if you have a purpose built ice cream...
Paris was overwhelmed by the speed and efficiemcy of blitzkrieg. They did not have a choice and was forced to negotiate with Hitler who got his railcar revenge.
The combined Italian and Nazi forces in the the Meditterenean was superior to the RN and RAF in 1940-1941. Had Hitler not luncjed Barbarossa too early he could have provided more resorces to his Afrika Corps.
I firmy believe that Hitler had a better chance of winning had he did not took on the...
Hitler won against less powerful countries. France in 1940 was simply no match against Germany.
You're a hopeless ideologue. All your analysis of events are colored by "illegals." :facepalm:
Economic/industrial might is the most decisive factor in wars. "Determination" or whatever you would like to call it is the exception.
And in the topic of this thread, Germany's defeat in WW2, the economic might of the allies simply exhausted German tactical military prowess.
You're operating on exceptions - not a good position. Romantics tend to over inflate the instances of wars won by smaller/poorer sides. The overwhelming statistics in warfare however throughout history is that the winner ultimately is the side that can bring more resources to bear against the...
To be cynical, Hitler should not have directly invaded the USSR and instead consolidated its gains in Western Europe, Poland, parts of Eastern Europe and Baltic states. Hitler should have maintained his pact with Stalin and agreed to formalize their respective spheres if influence.
Having...
We are talking about WW2, a conventional war. Vietnam and Afghanistan are unconventional wars fought by irregular/guerilla forces against conventional forces.
The size and health of your economy is decisive in conventional wars.
With bigger GDP amd thus more weapons, troops, reserves, Hitler could have easily captured the oil fields in Eastern Europe from the Soviets and perhaps in the ME from the British.
It's simple, the combatant that has more money produces more weapons, hires, trains and sustains more soldiers, able to mount more campaigns and is able to replace losses. In other words, in a war of attrition like WW2 deep pocket wins.
If megalomaniac Hitler had USA's GDP in WW2 then the result of the war would certainly be different, even if he ended up alienating most countries in Europe.
Imagine if Hitler was able to produce 3x Panzer IVs or 2x Panthers and Tigers, or 3x Me 262 and induct them earlier? How about 2x...
1) The map of the German Empire (Pre-WW1):
2) The map of the Weimar Republic (Inter-war years):
3) The map of Germany Post-WW2:
a) Divided Germany into zones of occupation -
b) Cold War map of divided East-West Germany -
c) Present unified Germany -
As you can see Germany was biggest...