Karnonnos said:
AskSatanOperator said:
Tactically Hitler was a failure of a leader, choosing war on two fronts, ensuring that Germany would be defeated, rather than fortifying Germany's eastern borders and focusing efforts on the west, as was even recommended by his generals. If he had just done that, then turned his focus to Russia, chances are Germany would have won the war, seeing as Stalin at that point, wasn't even planning for a war. Yes, Russia did turn out to be unexpectedly strong, however with its resources consolidated, and not tied up in a different war, Germany could have won.
Why worship some one who by his own over confidence, destroyed his country by dragging it into an unwinnable war?
How would he have one front if Poland ensured France and Britain declared war?
England if declaring would have just bombed Germany while slowly filling up France/Lowlands.
France = England's enemy as Hitler put it in Dalton's if Germany allied after the Sino-Russo War of 1905 with Japan. England and France would have been checkmated. Maybe even form and alliance with Germany to checkmate France.
England had been losing power especially to the French. So France was a burden on England.
In fact Hitler goes so far as to state by allying with Japan WW1 would have been avoided and the communist uprisings might never had happen. As Russia was not massacred by the Germans in WW1. The Russians were kinda backwards a lot in that time only recently did they get into tanks and industrialization even Japan who only recently popped up as an Industrial power surprised the World. Old Jacob Schiff's 200,000,000 dollar contribution to the Sino-Russo war was a bet that even he might have surprised him.
Sheer fact is France was the big bully. And Germany also was coming to power and noticing France's strength.
France is a territory very protected. Germany is very open and with large swaths of land. France's mountains and low-land neighbors gives it a buffer.
It's surprising how the French campaign went. 1700s-1800s-pre-WW1/WW1 tactics against 3rd Generational Warfare.
England would have just continued to do it's bombing on Berlin and industrial centers since the second week of the war. The Germans warned the RAF but they just bombed first bombing casualty the main attraction of the Berlin zoo the Elephant that was obliterated just pieces of meat left behind.
Sheer fact is France would never defeat the German tactics and even though the WW1 tactic is not Blitzkreig per say. It was certainly upgunned with tank and massing strike point/points.
England and France are kinda crappy without American cucks coming in.
Germany would prepare against France and Low-Lands. But allying with Poland and taking out Soviets would have been easy.
Or you follow the alternative History of eliminating WW1 and not having to deal with the great war losses plus the strikes, uprisings, and other marxist kosher terrorists operations. In other words Russia would have probably allied with Germany especially as the Germans explain they diaspora to Russia near the Renascence and upgunned Russia.
Either way even France's scary army, England, Low-Lands was defeated by Germany by 1915. America just came in and attacked while Germany was worn out. Russia was massacred by WW1 trench warfare. The horse cavalry charges were a far cry from the past. Only during WW2 with Poland's cavalry charges did the Polish push and hold the Germans. For some reason even the tanks had trouble with the amount of cavalry the Poles had. It took a while to really punch through Poland before and just slightly after the Soviet backstab. Even still the Germans were struggling against the horseback a bit.
Anyways there are multiple alternative historical events.
