So all Hitler had to do was not backstab stalin...and london west Europe is his

Uchiha God

Uchiha God

Veteran
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
15,021
Reputation
7,374
Daps
93,234
Reppin
NULL
Hess said he had a dream that he had to go broker peace with Britain then jumped on a planed solo and flew to Scotland:mjlol: when Hitler found out he told his mans to put it in print and radio waves that Hess was crazy and believed in horoscope and tarot cards :russ:
 
African Peasant

African Peasant

Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2014
Messages
19,665
Reputation
3,115
Daps
71,214
Sukairain said:
Nonetheless, he was already fighting on three fronts: western and northern Europe, the Balkans and southern Europe, and north Africa. Adding a fourth front was never going to go down well, even if you've got manpower in the billions like China or India a four-front war is too much to pull off. At least one of them should have been locked down beforehand.

Also I'm not sure if Stalin was an unmanageable threat like that on his own. Yes, they would inevitably have gone to war over Poland and eastern Europe, but if Stalin started it in 1948 the situation is totally different if you've got western Europe locked down. You don't have to worry about an Anglo - Soviet alliance for one thing, and with the UK out of the picture the Americans wouldn't have a base of operations in Europe. There wouldn't be a single friendly port or airfield to land US troops in the whole Atlantic seaboard of Europe. So strategically, the value of securing a front would have been greater than the resources that could be gained by an early eastern invasion.
Click to expand...

Stalin was going to be a threat by himself. The USSR became the second military power in the world after the war. They just needed more time. Stalin told Molotov (or Beria) that he needed 6 more months to prepare himself. The USSR was too much of a threat to be ignored. They had too many resources and they were modernizing their military. Waiting meant a stronger USSR. I think he had no choice.

Also, Hitler needed the resources of the USSR (Ukraine and the Caucasus) to keep his machine working.

And in order to shut down Churchill and the UK, he had to destroy their only potential ally in the continent. Otherwise, Germany would've ended up in a two-front war like in WW1.

Finally, invading eastern Europe was the endgame for Hitler, so he needed to take care of the USSR while it was at its weakest.

Do you really think Hitler could've achieved better results if he waited?
 
African Peasant

African Peasant

Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2014
Messages
19,665
Reputation
3,115
Daps
71,214
LShedged said:
Going to have disagreed breh, I read a fair share of the same sources carlin read for his khan series and he did really well putting it all together. Even the Chinese history side of that series was on point. People are always messing up that. Yeah, he leans to military history side a lot more so he has that bias. Even with his bias he does it well.


My only beef with Carlin is he focuses way too much on Europe. But :yeshrug:



And to be fair no one encompass turning points in history well because financial history which is essential is always glossed over!
Click to expand...

TBH I did not listen to the Kahn or the chinese series. But I listened to the WW series and he spent a lot of time on battles and visual descriptions of the situation, but his commentary on the political game was rather superficial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top