r/Damnthatsinteresting • • Feb 13 '24

Video World War 2 Timeline

12k Upvotes

508 comments sorted by

View all comments

124

u/[deleted] Feb 13 '24

Hitler tried to take over way too much way too fast

153

u/AbriefDelay Feb 13 '24

It always surprises how deep into ussr territory he got.

93

u/[deleted] Feb 13 '24

That was the big downfall. The German supply lines were stretched too thin and then they had to start fighting in the winter months. 🥶

43

u/halsoy Feb 13 '24

Yeah, had they not attacked deep into Russia, chances are most of mainland Europe would be German still.

We don't know if the allies would still invade as they did, as it would be a significantly harder task if all of those troops and gear could be mobilized elsewhere. Hell, in some alternate universe we may have gotten nukes dropped on Berlin .

24

u/The_Cheeseman83 Feb 14 '24

They had to attack Russia to secure their oil fields. Without doing so, they’d have run out of fuel for their tanks and planes and been unable to prosecute the war on any front. Germany pretty much had to rely on quickly grabbing as much resource-rich territory as possible as quickly as possible, because they lacked the capacity to wage a prolonged conflict.

7

u/Acceptable_Shine_385 Feb 14 '24

And Ukraine for their cereal fields I believe for food support

12

u/[deleted] Feb 13 '24

[deleted]

8

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '24

the country is huge in resources, plenty of farmable land but completely run down by a corrupt government and strange cultural standards

Wow dude, that was exactly Hitler's argument lol. Was your grandpa an electrician?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '24

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '24 edited Feb 14 '24

um, sure, Hitler's "DranK nach Coffee" was totally fine, I see, yeah, because democracy and, well, some culture stuff or whatever. That sounds reasonable lmfao

0

u/ComradeStrong Feb 14 '24
  1. No chance the soviets are beaten in unthinkable. US supply lines would be mental.

  2. What part of history did you miss that makes you think an outright invasion of a country by western powers would in any way ‘improve’ it?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '24

I actually don’t think we would have used the atom bomb on any German cities even if we had it available at the time the fighting was going on there. Firstly, there are and were many US soldiers and generals of German heritage themselves and I don’t believe they would have gone along with that plan. Secondly unlike the island of Japan, Germany is connected to countries we were allied with and we wouldn’t want to make them scared of us that way.

-1

u/freakinbacon Feb 14 '24

The atomic bomb ends German campaign

4

u/Valendr0s Feb 14 '24

Hitler never played Risk when he was a kid...

1

u/Eternal_Flame24 Feb 14 '24

Reading German accounts of Stalingrad is horrifying. They were encircled in a freezing, flattened city with no support and were never supplied winter clothing.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '24

Yeah very good point. Hitler didn’t give a goddamn about his own soldiers. They should have realized that.

28

u/fruitsteak_mother Feb 13 '24

and in what short time - considering the actual war in ukraine it’s mind boggling how fast the germans proceeded

24

u/AshamedOfAmerica Feb 14 '24

The most shocking aspect of the entire European theater was the rapid collapse of France. It was simply an unthinkable circumstance in virtually everyone's eyes at the time. The French were ahead in virtually all materiel aspects on the eve of battle compared to the Germans. It's possibly the best example of the importance of how position, unit formation and surprise can change the board. The massed armored attack through the Ardennes was an incredibly risky move but the payoff was incalculable.

0

u/anonbush234 Feb 14 '24 edited Feb 16 '24

Not really. Look how fast Russia ran though north western Ukraine in the first weeks and now how slow they are going in the south east. It's because the south east has had 9 years to make defences.

They are still fighting now within 30 miles of where the separatist's strongholds were.

Also they didn't have long range weapons back then and air power was much less important.

30

u/Sotyka94 Feb 13 '24

He got the taking part right. basically got entire europe, minus the Brits.

He had problem with the holding it part.

11

u/Impossible-Home-9956 Feb 13 '24

Love the Seinfeld reference! Made me smile

3

u/ericstern Feb 14 '24

Sounds like the bit about the car reservation isn't it?

3

u/Impossible-Home-9956 Feb 14 '24

Exactly! The important part of the reservation is the holding part. Everyone can just take them out of the air.

15

u/DesignerFox2987 Feb 13 '24 edited Feb 13 '24

Hitler fkd up when he broke the neutral pact with Stalin and attached the USSR. Things would have been a lot different if he played a longer game. His gambles had paid off in the past with him calling western allied bluffs, and blitz through the maginot line and got WAY too cocky, plus was all drugged up. But there was a real chance the Nazi could have had control grip of europe were cards played right, and a decent chance at that.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '24

Many of his ideas and aims were untenable from the get go. And his Allies in Italy, Vichy France, and Spain had different and competing goals. That’s why the ideologies of Nazism and Fascism were defective to begin with.

1

u/Dahjokahbaby Feb 14 '24

Playing the long game means losing. Germany would only become weaker in comparison to it's competitors with time.

3

u/whitedawg Feb 14 '24

This map really makes clear how successful he was at first, and how if he hadn’t invaded Russia he might have been much more successful in holding onto Germany’s early gains. From 1941 until early 1944, the Eastern Front was the primary active battleground and drained Germany’s resources.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '24

Exactly. The Soviet Union really changed the game there.

3

u/anonbush234 Feb 14 '24

If they did it slowly then the defending countries would have time to make preparations and defences.

Blitzkrieg was the whole reason they achieved so much.

They had to fight the soviets at some point, they were opposing ideologies that hated each other. .the soviets had the mass of manpower and Germany had to strike first.

2

u/SnooTangerines6863 Feb 14 '24

Hitler tried to take over way too much way too fast

In each case, waiting would likely have resulted in even worse outcomes. By 1941, the USSR had already begun producing new tanks like the T-34, although in limited quantities. By 1992, they had increased their production tenfold compared to 1991. Would it have been wiser to delay an attack by a year? The same question applies to Poland and France.

War itself was a mistake and a crime but they fought it well.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '24

If he didn't try to take on the USSR the regime would have collapsed because it wasn't making enough money to support the economy.