• LeninWalksTheWorld [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 years ago

      just take Leningrad immediately but also “zurge rush” (lmao) Stalingrad at the same time. Like yeah okay I’m sure the Nazis (famous for Blitzkrieg not close combat) can handle two of the most intense urban warfare battles at once hundreds of kilometers apart without getting their ass owned.

      taking Stalingrad wouldn’t even cut off the oil either the Soviets had made preparations to ship Caucasian oil across the Caspian Sea to Astrakhan to keep the military fueled. It would have been awfully inefficient logistically but they would have been able to do it.

      • ultraviolet [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        The Soviets weren’t going to let them have the Caucasus oil either. There were comprehensive plans to destroy the oil infrastructure if that area was ever lost.

  • The_Walkening [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    Ally with the Slavs against the commies

    “Hey Stepan, I know I called you and your people subhuman, but c’mon man… there’s communists and they’re bad…so…”

    • LeninWeave [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      Ally with the Slavs against the commies

      “Hey Stepan, I know I called you and your people subhuman, but c’mon man… there’s communists and they’re bad…so…”

      This is actually the least ridiculous part because Eastern European fascists constantly go for this reasoning lmao. :wonder-who-thats-for:

  • WoofWoof91 [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    focus on RAF facilities

    1. britain had radar before the nazis
    2. the raf turned every flat bit of ground into an airstrip
    3. easier to bomb a city than a random field in the middle of nowhere
    4. those airstrips had aa guns and, you know, fighters in them
  • Mike_Penis [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    Germany lost the war in december of 41 when their advance was halted. They literally only planned for like a 6 month campaign because halder was like yeah they will surrender after we take moscow lol

    • kristina [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      im czech but even from a general strategic viewpoint, why the fuck did he think starting war with poland was a good idea? you already have annexed like 4 countries scot-free. the polish were even willing to trade the polish corridor for something else. fascists are so stupid

      like im glad that war happened cause otherwise czech culture might not exist (even members of my family were kidnapped) but like jeez how stupid

      • LeninsRage [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 years ago

        The Nazis had to continuously pursue their revanchist aims and win in order to maintain popular legitimacy. The German economy was also disastrously overheated and on the precipice of catastrophic collapse, which was only prevented by going to war, getting insanely lucky against France, and then plundering continental Europe for needed raw materials and wealth. The Nazis had maneuvered into a position where they had to go to war for their regime to survive, by design.

        They also, like all fascists, were ideologically incapable of objectively evaluating the perceived strength of their enemies. Hitler gambled that Britain and France would back down again, and gambled again that the Wehrmacht had the capability to defeat them quickly.