You don't defeat France with relatively paltry losses by being inefficient. Your argument is objectively flawed, for obvious reasons. The Wehrmacht early in the war was a relatively efficient machine, with good leadership, doctrine, etc., despite its moral bankruptcy. Stop bringing morality into discussions where it is irrelevant.
You're being intentionally blind to the strengths of the Wehrmacht. The problem with ascribing everything to luck is that you don't take into account that it takes genuine skill to take full advantage of opportunity when it shows itself. Bad armies, when faced with good luck, fail to exploit it properly. An inefficient army would have failed to defeat France, even with luck. History is full of examples of armies failing to take advantage of crucial opportunities, where more competent armies would have exploited them.
None of those men were in any way moral in their dealings with the Germans or the Japanese. What they did was determined by strategy. Just the same as Stalin and Hitler did. If we were truly moral, we would not have caged thousands upon thousands of innocent Japanese, firebombed German and Japanese cities, or have deported millions of ethnic Germans back into the Reich in cattle cars.My reasoning is based on historical data which I discussed in that whole thread in detail. The French made a mistake in the disposition of their reserve in a highly restrictive battlespace and time interval. That is what actually happened. Where is the refutation based on competing data? Where? My post is an analysis which includes some of that history as presented in the cited article in that post.
As for morality, if the Berlin Maniac had any concern for his Wehrmacht, he would not have allowed it to die on the Volga.
Kind of incompetent and inefficient was the Herr and its goddamned evil state leader and the imbecilic corrupt military staff that served him.
As a contrast... moral leadership, efficient leadership, victorious leadership...
File:Franklin D. Roosevelt, General MacArthur, and Admiral ...Nimitz...
Edit. BTW Tooze makes a damning case for German WWII incompetence. That was the whole purpose of the book; "Wages of Destruction"; to debunk the myth of Nazi economic/political efficiency. Immorality (theft, murder, wastage, balkanization and criminal dissipation of effort by gangsters.), was one of the root causes he identified.
Stalin and Hitler slaughtered millions in utter military imbecility. Take a look at CARTWHEEL by contrast to see how it should be done. MacArthur was not necessarily any more capable than Paulus, but HE was constrained by the necessity to make war morally as well as efficiently. Send shells, not men. Bypass dug in Japanese garrisons and let the 14th Area army starve.
Hmmm. You know how strange it is to me, that someone would write...
A system in which a war is planned to start in a certain year from the start and Hitler’s brinkmanship is tempered until that time so as to not plunge the country into a war while not ready for it. Combine that with war production ministry that can and will plan for the conduct of said war production and secure stockpiling of vital non importable resources Inside Germany for the planned duration of the war in sufficient quantities that a blockade doesn’t cause immediate crisis. Then plan the modernization and upgrade programs as well as military expansion in manageable manner. The Nazi germany fully went in on military expansion and while recent economic data suggests that it was not as ruinous as believed before that effort could not be kept up for half a decade more.
So, Hitler's planning actually seems sensible on a strategic level. His step by step program of first taking Austria then Czechoslovakia seems relatively rational. Pivoting west to take the Low Countries and France seems reasonable to provide himself of another source of labor and raw material, along with a suitable base for bombing and invading Britain once the Soviet Union was properly dealt with. Then a triumphant sweep into the Middle East and Africa, and Hitler would have it made. His big problem was that he didn't take advantage of the resources he had at his disposal, and he didn't design the army to fight the Soviet Union properly. So who could have ensured the Army could get the job done on the economic front?
The man who engineered Hitler's opening military buildup and economic strategy. MEFO Bills, etc. He resigned over the realization that war was an inevitability, and Hitler was not pursuing a sustainable rearmament program, but a crash rearmament that could only be sustained by the outbreak of war.
The problem with your statements, is that you seem unwilling to separate the Nazi Party Administration's poor administrative management from the tactically proficiency of the early Wehrmacht. They were not one and the same, even with the high level of cooperation between the two in war crimes, etc. And mind you, pointing out that Germany lost the war as being a sign the German army was totally incompetent is disingenuous at best. No army of the time could be realistically expected to fight four great powers and come out on top. The late-war fall in quality of the Wehrmacht was not because they lost their morals (they'd lost them long ago), but because they could not sustain the high level of attrition a fight against the USSR would entail.
Dude who created the mefo bills that able Germany to take on a whole lot of debt which were unsustainable in the first place due to lack of foreign reserves ( which nazis Germany “solved” by seizing other countries foreign reserves)
Actually, I have enough imagination to understand the 60 attempts on the Berlin Maniac's life. BUT, I also understand why if not Nazi, then some general form of psychotic, sociopathic political movement, based on a hate ideology, was bound to emerge from the conditions that prevailed in the region. Not just the Germans, either. Different thread subject and requires another thread to cover it, but FASCISM was a rather popular movement among many polities.
Because it cannot be.
They were. Ordinate and sub-ordinate. One gave the orders and the other obeyed.
a. The Americans sustained their allies and fought a seven front war besides. So that bird does not fly.
Example of how immorality leads to inefficient war-making.
Your logic is full of holes.
