Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This is what boggles my mind: if Hitler and his cronies had been competent military leaders and limited the scope of their war and stopped at the English channel and kept the peace with Russia, or at least one of those, it seems to me chances were pretty good the Nazi grasp of Europe could have solidified and perhaps grown permanent. What a nightmarish scenario that is...

I am therefore happy the Nazis bit off more than they could chew by starting a war with the Brits, which eventually brought the Americans on board, and the Russians, where they suffered most of their losses. On the one hand it seems that it's just a matter of chance their leadership was so grossly incompetent, but on the other hand maybe we can always bank on such types to get caught up in their own rhetoric and they by definition are too ambitious for their own 'good'.



Surrender of France: June 1940

Barbarossa (invasion of USSR): June 1941

Pearl Harbor: December 1941.

If the Nazis had somehow negotiated a successful end to hostilities with the UK between 1940 and 1941, they could have become a stable power holding much of central Europe. The problem they faced was lack of oil - there isn't much central Europe. That forced the push east into the oil fields of the caucasus. The Japanese invasions were similarly triggered by the need for oil that could not be embargoed from them.


Without a war with the USSR they could (continue to) be supplied by the USSR.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: