Of course, Of course. Such Silly Bourgeousis Failures as Nationalism, Revanchism and Egomania have absolutely nothing to do with it. Our Volksfurher is a true visionary!
(Warning, Warning: Sarcasm Bar nearing explosion)
Hitler likely wouldn't mind the nationalism and revanchism but he probably would take the egoism accusation personally.
I'd like to shout out this channel, and hopefully we can get an interlude chapter of a joint German/Russian cartography commission falling apart over how to render British placenames
That was a great video and interesting watch. The notion of a cartography commission kinda reminds me of this parody map of the
London Underground translated into German in such a way that it is completely useless for everyone.
Sorry for typing errors, but English is not my first language:
In our timeline, Hitler's theoretical errors (among others) was his total disregard for socialist and liberal systems, both of which he saw as belonging to degenerate races and controlled by the Jews in the rear, I mean, population, resources or capacity. industrialists did not care since he was convinced that they would be defeated before his "Aryan" armies.
Here everything seems to indicate that their inability to distinguish between bourgeoisies that opt for fascism and those that opt for liberalism as a form of domination (and the contradictions that usually face them) since by placing them both as part of the same "international conspiracy" it will end up leading him to the same mistake on our timeline: declaring war on everyone at the same time.
That's a good point. I think some of the OTL mistakes can be put down to diplomatic and intelligence failures amongst other things but even then it's the sort of thing that a racialised worldview would engender in the first place. "The British and French actually followed through in declaring war in defence of Poland? Well that just proves it's all a Jewish plot!" "The Red Army is far larger than we anticipated? Well it'll all fall apart once we kick in the door anyway!" The one thing I would say is that an economic worldview, even one that takes Marx and Lenin's analysis to a paranoid extreme via a German exceptionalist stance, is still going to be more rational than any racialised one. It's far easier to take industrial capacity seriously when you can't dismiss the country as being full of "subhumans" or "mongrels".
USA can't afford to lose 5 million soldiers,
They probably could but not much more beyond that.
True but you have to factor in the lack of Lend-Lease as well. Without that the Soviets can't devote as much industry towards aircraft and task as OTL and German production won't make up the difference at all.
It made 1% of overall Soviet effort in OTL, and entire wester part of Union is safe place now, and not battlefield. They don't need nothing from it.
We are talking about Lend and Lease in actual history, not Soviet Cold War Propaganda.
You are correct about the USSR having significantly more food, manpower, production capacity, etc with it's own land not touched, though.
Exactly, that lend-lease was why the Soviets were able to focus their entire war industry on just basically guns, planes and tanks. It's a major reason OTL they were able to deal with the poor logistical capability of Eastern Europe which the Germans couldn't. Germany can't replace that material TTL and supply their own forces.
They probably can strictly speaking. The main reason the USSR had a shortage of materials and equipment to start with was large amounts being captured and their production facilities being overrun or disrupted during that. Without that well... lets just say i'm betting on Stalin for this round.
I wouldn't have any pretensions of trying to resolve the great Lend Lease debate here although I think we can all acknowledge it was important even if the question as to what extent it was essential will continue to be discussed in perpetuity. Although it can be portrayed as accounting for a small percentage of the Soviet war effort overall there were aspects of it which couldn't be simply accounted for by alleviating the destruction and disruption caused by the Axis invasion. By the same token you don't have a Soviet people fighting for their lives in a existential conflict against fascist-imperialism. Granted that is Hitler's worldview ITTL but the Soviets might not be too keen on playing the role he has set out for them.
Well. If the Kwangtung Army doesn't decide to invade China might be more accurate. Tokyo really didn't have that much say in the matter.
Tokyo has a bit more say than IOTL given that the Kwantung Army missed the bus on Manchuria although the militarists are inclined to blame Tokyo for that happening in the first place.
If we're talking logistics, I suppose a big question is if TTL's Germany will be as bad at producing trucks compared to the British Empire as OTL. Quite curious how the German-Soviet alliance will do in the coming war. I'm reminded of
@BiteNibbleChomp 's "The Twin Vipers" timeline, though in TTL the two tyrants are on much better terms.
One of the things I liked about that TL was the conscious choice to go down a road less travelled than what usually happens in a Axis-Soviet alliance scenario. That certainly is a consideration here as well although as you say it has a different setting to begin with.
And like that timeline, I'm predicting the Germans will not get as lucky as OTL with the Sickle Cut, or else the war will be over quick.
If memory serves Sickle Cut was shelved in that TL whereas here Manstein isn't even around in the first place!
Thanks to scores of communist in most occupied states dealing with local resistance will be lot easier for Germany and USSR in OTL, no Yugoslav partisans and others to hold entire divisions at bay.
There's a bit of give and take there as whilst you gain local Communist support in any given occupied state you might also lose a lot of the state apparatus in doing so. The Nazis were quite happy to use the elements of the existing authorities in their occupation in Scandinavia, Western Europe and to a certain extent the Balkans, conversely Communist groups in said countries were almost perfectly set-up for resistance as they were already used to clandestine or underground organisation in places where they were marginalised or outright banned. The problem is that preparing an armed uprising isn't necessarily the same as maintaining the public transport system. Then you have fascist and other reactionary movements that were willing to collaborate with the Nazis or at least keep quiet; to use your example of Yugoslavia you had the Ustaše as particularly "enthusiastic" Nazi collaborators but who would otherwise have been well placed to mount an armed insurgency.
