Could the axis during ww2 have better leaders than they did in actual history? IF so how?
May 17, 2022 2:52:23 GMT
stevep and American hist like this
Post by simon darkshade on May 17, 2022 2:52:23 GMT
South America? Not in a month of Sundays.
Spain and Portugal? France historically set his price too high as he knew that Spain could not sustain another war so soon and that the Anglo-Americans held the whip hand over Spain by virtue of strategic geography.
Any Nazi German state and indeed any revanchist German entity was not going to be able to continue any 'alliance' with the USSR. The latter were the main war goal of Germany, as the gains in Western and Central Europe only gave them momentary respite from their economic and resource problem.
Hitler early on seemed to be making the winning calls, so there wasn't a basis for any challenge to his rulings around the time of Dunkirk.
Himmler was the antithesis of competent. Indeed, the whole Nazi leadership clique can be thrown into that category.
Whoever is in charge of Germany doesn't change their essential issues:
- They can be cut off from world trade
- They have a relative dearth of strategic resources, with all of non-Russian Europe not providing sufficient coal, oil, iron and food for their purposes
- It is inevitable that they will face a multi-front war
- Their GDP and GDP/capita were insufficient for their aims and purposes
- Germany needed to rely on everything going right in their favour and nothing going right for their enemies and potential enemies
- By virtue of their geostrategic position, they will become a security threat to the United States and have to take them on in some fashion
- The Great War cut a swathe through their prospective manpower classes; not to the extent of France, but still enough to cause bottlenecks
Changing the name at the top of the page, so to speak, does not alter what is written on said page.
Spain and Portugal? France historically set his price too high as he knew that Spain could not sustain another war so soon and that the Anglo-Americans held the whip hand over Spain by virtue of strategic geography.
Any Nazi German state and indeed any revanchist German entity was not going to be able to continue any 'alliance' with the USSR. The latter were the main war goal of Germany, as the gains in Western and Central Europe only gave them momentary respite from their economic and resource problem.
Hitler early on seemed to be making the winning calls, so there wasn't a basis for any challenge to his rulings around the time of Dunkirk.
Himmler was the antithesis of competent. Indeed, the whole Nazi leadership clique can be thrown into that category.
Whoever is in charge of Germany doesn't change their essential issues:
- They can be cut off from world trade
- They have a relative dearth of strategic resources, with all of non-Russian Europe not providing sufficient coal, oil, iron and food for their purposes
- It is inevitable that they will face a multi-front war
- Their GDP and GDP/capita were insufficient for their aims and purposes
- Germany needed to rely on everything going right in their favour and nothing going right for their enemies and potential enemies
- By virtue of their geostrategic position, they will become a security threat to the United States and have to take them on in some fashion
- The Great War cut a swathe through their prospective manpower classes; not to the extent of France, but still enough to cause bottlenecks
Changing the name at the top of the page, so to speak, does not alter what is written on said page.
