Saudi Arabia Charges Iran With ‘Act of War,’ Raising Threat of Military Clash - Polidicks

They were only successful from 1939 to 1942 because the world, especially allies, weren't prepared for war in the slightest as they naively believed that another great war won't happen. They tried to not spark another war, which resulted in such ridiculous decisions as the Munich agreement. French didn't want another war, UK had to keep their together and they had no intrest in warfare. Their mobilization started rather late. Poland was prepared for completely different war and so on. The Great Depression also played sone role in it. The biggest hit was of course the foundation of new warfare: the Blitzkrieg, which created more uses for tank divisions. These stopped being only used as a support for infantry divisions. And so the Germans were the only ones prepared for global war. Then Barbarossa happened, which took the unorganized USSR by suprise. Following the year 1942, Soviets started to outproduce Germans, their industry was moved to Ural. Then Germans started to run out of oil for their production, which gave a great advantage to SU. There was nothing to save their Ostplan then. When UK enabled their full potential and USSR started to missively attack the frontline later on, the war was over for Germans. Germany could not win WWII, even if they didn't attack Soviets. Because Soviets were going to war with them anyways. Also by no means any country that Germany went to war with had greater army. In size only France dominated them (and later USSR), but both of those armies' quality were worse than that of Germans. Navy and airforce, however, is different story.

[QUOTE=Mifil;52865766]They were only successful from 1939 to 1942 because the world, especially allies, weren't prepared for war in the slightest as they naively believed that another great war won't happen. [/QUOTE] Really irrelevant to why they were successful. They were, especially in those years. It's a fact that they conquered all of Europe in a matter of years.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52865833]Really irrelevant to why they were successful. They were, especially in those years. It's a fact that they conquered all of Europe in a matter of years.[/QUOTE] Yes, they would of fallen anyways, but that would cause a far greater delay in wartime. If for example Poland prepared herself for a war with Germany rather than with USSR, Fall Weiß would last longer. The western allies indeed prepared themselves during the phoney war. That's why I've also given other reasons like equipment and tactics. The French not only believed the old trench-life warfare will save them, the general public didn't want another war, which had some impact on morale.

Look, the Nazis were annihilated in the end, but nobody can deny that they stood up to far greater numbers, and in some cases, better equipment, and still won many battles. France fell despite having double the men and better tanks than the Germans, even with the 300,000 British men(& Harry Styles) helping them. They beat surprising odds due to clever strategic and tactical moves and lost due to hubris, being outnumbered, neglecting the navy and lots of other mistakes.

[QUOTE=Dan The Man;52866095]Look, the Nazis were annihilated in the end, but nobody can deny that they stood up to far greater numbers, and in some cases, better equipment, and still won many battles. France fell despite having double the men and better tanks than the Germans, even with the 300,000 British men(& Harry Styles) helping them. They beat surprising odds due to clever strategic and tactical moves and lost due to hubris, being outnumbered, neglecting the navy and lots of other mistakes.[/QUOTE] Isn't that what I just stated? When we add all the Allies, they did outnumber the Germans. I was just comparing Reich to specific countries. In no means my intentions were to deny the great success of Third Reich's war effort. I do however question the possibility of them winning the WWII, no matter what. [editline]7th November 2017[/editline] And eventual explaination, why Germany did so good based on the allies' side of things.

[QUOTE=Mifil;52866131]Isn't that what I just stated? When we add all the Allies, they did outnumber the Germans. I was just comparing Reich to specific countries. In no means my intentions were to deny the great success of Third Reich's war effort. I do however question the possibility of them winning the WWII, no matter what. [editline]7th November 2017[/editline] And eventual explaination, why Germany did so good based on the allies' side of things.[/QUOTE] My post was not intended to register disagreement with you, just add to the discussion generally. I agree that the Nazis would have had a hard time winning, but only because of the USSR. People who say Germany made a mistake attacking Russia are not familiar with geopolitics from that era - it was a pre-emptive attack.

Didn't the Third Reich and the USSR have a non-aggression treaty (which Hitler broke)?

[QUOTE=Quark:;52866555]Didn't the Third Reich and the USSR have a non-aggression treaty (which Hitler broke)?[/QUOTE] Yes. It was called the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact, and it also secretly planned that the Russians would invade Poland from the East when Germany attacked, with them planning to share it. Still, the non-aggression pact was simply them biding their time - the countries hated each other ideologically and a war was inevitable. Germany simply knew that they had to act fast if they wanted to win.