I know that its great that they didn't (Obviously) but i was talking to a friend earlier and this came up, we both agreed that through fighting spirit, prowess and tactical genius really they should have won and if they won they would have deserved it completely, what do you guys think?
Well,it was a very near thing,and with only a few variables changed,they certainly would've won.I won't get into the whole alt history scenario,but one or two incidents going the other way would've changed the war-for example,if the Luftwaffe would've prevailed against the RAF,or if the UK had not been able to rescue as many of their forces from Dunkirk as they did,thereby creating the nucleus of the army that they needed to return to the continent,or the Japanese moving against the Soviets in the east.Any of these,along with countless others,would've changed everything.
I don't think their fighting spirit was greater than the Allies! I know it was close, but tactically, the right side won, since they won, lol. You probably meant something else, but I had to chime in.
WHO followed this in War 2''...... Si vis pacem,para bellum.....'' the Axis or the Allied,I confused. Pls help...
Neither I would say... Hitler didn't wanted peace at all, he prepared for war to make war and conquer other countries! Same with Stalin! And the western Allies weren't prepared for war at all, especially the Americans, they had an Army as big as Polands in 1938!
They deserved what they got and a lot more. The unprovoked attacks on soft targets do not make geniuses out of the winners. Over all the Germans did not outperform the allies for the duration of the war. The Battle of Moscow army group center out gunned and outmanned the Russians but still were driven back in some cases panic. Only the intervention of Hitler saved the most powerful army group on the eastern front. this was in 41!
You may be right in your assesment of their tactical skills and fighting ability, but that is not what give victory in the end. God is the one who is sovereign over all nations, and what Germany was doing was evil. Therefore they endured for a time, but were defeated ultimately, you could say by God, because God gave the allies the ability to defeat them.
To be candid, its sort of seems like a bizarre question. Yes, the German war machine was impressive and the strongest on the Axis side of the war. However, their leadership's bumbling was disastrous. On the topic, a book I heartily recommend is Why the Allies Won, by Richard Overly.
May I suggest a curious choice: "Making History" by Stephen Fry. The author postulates in this science fiction alternate history novel: would the world be better of if Adolf had never been born?
I think that the only reason that Germany did not win World War 2 is Russia. I think that if Germany crushed Russia, they would have won the war. Russia emwas attacking them from the east, and the other countries were pushing on the right. Germany is just one country, and it took on the entire developed world, and managed to nearly win. Pretty amazing stuff.
That theory has been around for sometime. That is if Barbarossa succeeded, the Europe Axis would have turned their attention to consolidating power and crushing the last resistance in North Africa and the Med. If the British Empire would have sued for peace at that time is a matter of some debate though. An alternative hypothesis, and one postulated in Germany and the Axis Powers, by. RL DiNardo, if I recall correctly, is that Axis should have knocked out the Allies in the North Africa first before turning on the Soviets. But I suppose this is beginning to drift a bit.
It was impossible for Germany to have won WWII for one simple reason: they had Adolf Hitler as a leader. While it is true that he made some insightful decisions which were brillant, there were other decisions of his which were horrible. And as the war dragged out his ability to make rational decisions became increasing impaired. It was his decision in 1935 that Germany should start the aggressions in 1943. To this end Germany's economy and war production was developed, especially the naval construction. As anyone who knows anything of national economy knows it takes time to tool and re-tool factories to make the goods needed for war. It takes time to lay down ship's keels and even build U-boats. One wonders what differences may have been to the course of the war had Germany's production had been in sync with Adolf's whimsey. For example: Churchill said that while the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe were worries it was the German Navy, especially the U-boats which made him lose sleep. But when the war began in 1939 Germany's U-boat arm was woefully unprepared. Naval construction of U-boats was delayed because war was not meant to start for several YEARS. At the start of the war the plan was to have 300 sea-boats, able to reign terror on Britain's Navy and Merchant Marine. As it was Karl Donetz's inventory was 57 total U-boats. And even with this scant number he was able to nearly able to win the war. It seems a mathematical certainty that had Germany's naval construction had afforded Donetz his 300 boats in 1939 wir habe heute Deutsch geschprecken.
Agreed with this, completely. For all his strengths and weaknesses as a leader, Der Führer was a complete incompetent at grand strategy. Not the least of which the decision to go to war with, simultaneously, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States. Then there is the alliances he made and how they operated and his complete mishandling of his generals. And all those are just beginning to scrape the surface.
