I feel like China is the one that's actually playing 4D chess

submitted by casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You're not getting the point. In order to win a war, you need the proper tools to wage it. Would you set off to build a home without hammers or drills?

Admiral Erich Raeder, commander of the Kriegsmarine noted that the war began 5 years before the German navy would be ready. Versailles had essentially disbarred Germany from having a navy, so obviously it would take time to rebuild it. German admirals noted that they'd need 300 submarines to enact a full undersea blockade of Britain and starve it into submission. Hitler accordingly ordered mass construction of submarines under plan Z.

However, when the war began, the Germans only had 58 submarines.

The Germans had plans to build a strategic bomber that could destroy British industry. The war began before they could develop it and efforts were shifted to fighters and tactical bombers.

The German army itself was not ready for war with the allies in 1939. Of the 141 divisions that took part in the battle of France, only half were combat capable as they lacked enough arms. Many divisions were equipped with WW1 vintage artillery. The French were far better armed and the British expeditionary force was fully motorized. This was inevitable as these countries had not been forced to disarm for 15 years.

Fortunately for the Germans, the French commanders were exceeding incompetent and used obsolete tactics. The Germans were able to defeat the French army with a handful of armored and motorized units. The bulk of the German army did not even have to see combat.

Yet, these limitations became more prevalent as time went on. At the Battle of Britain, German efforts suffered since the Bf 109 lacked the range to escort the bombers.

German military industry also suffered from efficiency drawbacks as they did not have the experience of the British.

The point I'm trying to make is that Germany was not ready for war in 1939 and Hitler himself knew it. He knew that a great war would have to be fought and he wanted to delay it till Germany was ready. That date was held to be 1942. However, he brashly got Germany into war in 1939 over a really petty issue.

The British elite was not unanimous in their decision to go to war and Hitler did not need to test their reputation for the sake of Danzig. War was not inevitable in 1939.

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You have no point, you just recite decontextualised trivia. By saying that Germany was not ready for war, you are implicitly asserting that Britain and France were ready for war - this is the only presupposition which would make your claim about Germany meaningful. The facts are that the British and the French were absolutely not ready to fight Germany and history made that quite obvious with the Battle of France. You say that you need the proper tools necessary to wage a war in order to win it. What tools did the French have to win the land war? What tools did the British have to defeat Germany after the fall of France? Whatever they were, they were obviously insufficient. Your tunnel vision in regards to the German situation is preventing you from realising how much worse the circumstances of the Allies were.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What tools did the French have to win the land war?

The Anglo-French alliance was in the driver's seat in 1940. The plan was to wear the German army down with attrition. They intended to do this via superior French firepower and luring the Germans into fortifications in Alsace-Lorraine and Belgium. Over time, the greater population and industrial capacity of France and Britain would overwhelm Germany.

Britain also had Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to draw on for men and materials. This was Stalin's plan as well. He expected a repeat of ww1 where the German and Western allies would bleed themselves white with years of attrition and when they were exhausted and the Red Army was fully ready for a conquest of Europe, he'd steamroll fascist and capitalist powers of Europe with greater numbers and materiel.

This was all undone by the ingenious Manstein plan which lured the Anglo-French armies into Belgium but then the main thrust came through the Ardennes and trapped the best allied armies in Picardy and Flanders. The Germans themselves were shocked at how easy and bloodless the victory was. And Stalin then found himself in a very unfortunate scenario.

What tools did the British have to defeat Germany after the fall of France?

The British blockade and night bombing campaign. In any case, the British went into the war expecting the French to stay by their side for the duration of the war. The British controlled the seas and thus could not only defeat any invasion of their homeland but could also deny Germany much needed material resources from the rest of the world. They held the upper hand from the get-go.

Germany was the underdog and thus she had to prepare for war. She needed naval aviation, large numbers of submarines, and strategic bombers to fully starve and defeat Britain. The Anglo-French alliance in 1939 already had the tools to defeat Germany. They just bungled it through myopia and complacency.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You say that the Germans lacked the perfect preparations to comprehensively defeat and occupy France and Britain - countries which they did not intend to fight wars with in the first place. I say that unless you contextualise this by looking at how "prepared" the French were to fight the Germans on the battlefield and how "prepared" the British were to invade and occupy Germany, your observations are one dimensional and irrelevant. "Blockading" the entirety of continental Europe does not count as a war winning strategy and in fact says far more about how desperate the British situation was. The bombing campaign is another matter, but that comes much later. The British were certainly not "prepared" to bomb Germany at the start of the war, not by any stretch of the imagination.