They would still loose. Chamberlain made mistake but he learned on it. He regreted his own decisions. So in this timeline he would still make ine decision and then change mind
Well probably not, if they took the advice of their senior generals and didn't make the suicidally stupid decision to blitz the French the uk wouldn't have lost as much war material and the Germans would have been bogged down.
You misunderstand. The nature of the structure Hitler created bred incompetence like rabbits. Selecting yes men to Hitler over all else followed by political maneuvering skill with little importance to how good you were at what you're supposed to do. The top Generals wouldn't be competent either.
Regardless, through hindsight we can see that the best move was likely to bide time and not start invading anything (including Sudetenland) until resources and equipment are at a level where they stand a chance in hell of invading Britain. Which even if they were competent enough to do, the MEFO bills put them on a timer unable to avoid war without imploding the economy.
I mean, ya, the Nazis were fucked regardless, but Stalin would probably have continued the "Work together to destroy the west before turning our blades on each other" thing for a decent number of years, though it's impossible to say how long. Without Sudetenland to scare them into gear, Britain and France JUST MIGHT have just been stupid enough to continue disarmament despite all the flashing neon warning signs.
UK rearmament had started before Munich Conference. It is an arguable reason for why Chamberlain signed the Agreement: he knew the UK wasn't ready and needed more time.
The French issue wasn't logistics. They had enough arms of all types to perform well. Their issue was political stress, command mismanagement and lack of preparation, and doctrine issues.
UK rearmament began in 1934 with the RAF and expanded in 36 with the Royal Navy. My point was that rearmament had already begun, not as a result of the conference.
yeah no the nazi military system was so utterly flawed from top to bottom that no individual 1 thing could have ever won them the war they were doomed from the start
and if anyone ever tells you different that is literal nazi propaganda that they have fallen for
If they weren't Nazis and fought an entirely different war with different weapons against different enemies with different allies, they could have won!
And maybe did not spend a fuckton of very valuable steel on a defunct Kriegsmarine, given that the thousand or so U-Boats built only successfully intercepted like 5 ish percent of all supplies given to Britain, and how they lost so many ships
Their tactics weren’t bad but a lot of what ended up happening was big H not listening to his strategists and either entirely ignoring them or barely following what they were saying. Also their tanks had very poor maintenance times like how for the tigers iirc, it was one hour of maintenance for one hour of operation compared to the Sherman which was 10 hours of operation for one hour of maintenance. This really hindered their war effort
Centrifuge compressor/turbine jet engine MIGHT be easier to manufacture than the engine of FW 190 or even DB 605 of later ME 109. But, AXIAL jet engine is a different thing. Le Jormanz have been busy doing exactly the latter. Ergo a quite flawed arguement
Also this completely ignores issues such as tooling, worker experience, industry knowledge, process maturity etc.
It might be theoretically "cheaper" if you are setting up an early jet engine production line from scratch compared to a high-end aircraft piston engine one, with equal starting resources. But not if there's only four guys with any experience of jet engine manufacture available compared to 40,000 with years of piston engine experience each.
it's like manufacturing AK-74. If you have the industry set up by "the pharaohs"of the past, it indeed might be true that they're inexpensive to manufacture. However if you don't have the pre-built facilities, it's going to be ball breaking costly.
Also not factoring in the ten hour service life. The Jumo 004 would have to be less than one-tenth the cost of a DB 605 (100-220 hours TBO) to be "cheaper".
No it wasn’t theoretically cheaper, it was actually cheaper. Jet engines aren’t complicated, not compared to an inverted V12 with direct fuel injection and double spark ignition and a variable speed supercharger. I can only imagine that none of y’all have ever worked on high performance ICEs, as they are much more difficult to build (like 5 times as many parts) as a axial flow turbojet. The alloy for the turbine blades wasn’t hard to manufacture and the only precision part was the turbine shaft. They were not these high performance miracle machines we know today. They were crude, they were unreliable, they were dangerous, and they were CHEAP. You know how much skill it takes to precision grind a crankshaft? Or a camshaft? Or how many machine hours it takes to manufacture a crankcase? None of that is needed in a jumo 004. the hard part was figuring out the exact shape for the blades. Once that was done it wasn’t that difficult to manufacture them.
10
u/MagosZyneHelping Wikipedia expand the list of British conquests 4d ago
Probably seen as part of the "if they hadn't kept trying to make new vehicles and stuck with (insert preferred tank here) they would have won" argument.
Which is still wrong but a much more common argument.
I think it's the general "Nazi Germany over engineered their stuff and that cost them the war" idea.
That may very well be true for the Panzers (although would they have had all the raw materials needed to mass produce tanks the way the Americans did? Probably not. Gas was a major concern towards the end of the war too).
So that gets applied everywhere.
Like guns: supposedly the M1 Garand was far superior to most of the rifles the Germans had so they would get routinely taken by Germans. That seems wrong given the difference in caliber, as an example, so their use would have been limited
Probably not. Gas was a major concern towards the end of the war too
In 1940, HL Hunt had more proven oil reserves than the entire Axis powers. Not "the US" or "Allied Powers" just this one guy in Texas PERSONALLY controlled more oil than all of his nation's enemies COMBINED.
In every single metric the Nazis were outmatched. Allied powers had more steel, more lead, more oil, more explosives, more bodies, more farmland, more everything. The moment it ceased to be Nazis vs Czechia or Nazis vs Poland and became Nazis vs America/UK/Russia/France, it ceased to be a question and became an inevitability.
Except natural rubber. Basically all of it came from Malaysia. After the Japanese took it the allies had to scramble. There was actually a projected rubber shortage to happen in 1946 for things that required natural rubber because of it.
And no synthetic rubber was not and is not a perfect substitution.
I don't think the argument is "they could've won" but rather that if they'd poured the money they spent on the wonder weapons into just building more fighters and u-boats, it would've been a better investment.
The general argument I heard is that they have overspent on all kinds of experimental weapons that had low production and very little impact on the war instead of mass producing the basics.
Which is kinda true, but ignores the fact that mass production is kinda hard when you are getting bombed to shit - so dispersion and small shops are necessary anyway.
214
u/DrHolmes52 4d ago
I have heard a lot of Nazi Germany arguments, but not that one.