I disagree. Germany was part of a coalition in 1914 and didn't fight WW1 alone. By his choice of Alliance partners in 1938 Hitler was doomed:
Err no, if you compare to the alliance partners that Britain started with (excepting the Commonwealth, and in 1938 as part of the military equation even these nations were a net liability for Britain).
by June 1940, all of Britains prewar alliances were in tatters. Not only were many of these nations defeated, many of them were providing or were prepred to support germany. If Germany had played her cards right she could have organized a semi-united Europe to oppose the Allies. instead they chose to go Feudal and destroy Europe for a short term gain. Within months many who at least not opposed thje germans were now in open opposition to the Germans.
The assuymption at work here is that somehow the new alliances and new capabilities that develop to replace the old ones that had so completely failed the Allies would happen automatically and inevitably. Nothing could be further from the truth. The great achievement of Churchill was to forger new alliances out of defeat.....to use British money and influence to prepre their great hope, the US to start to get ready for war, to spend vast amounts of money to help the Commonwealth nations do the same, to use all their powers of persuasion and proaganda to support tyhe growing resistance movements on the continent. The British worked tirelessly in just about every field imaginable to build opposition to the germans....for example they insisted on keeping international shipping and trade routes open so that neutral nations would continue to trade with them, and not attempt to trade with the germans. They willingly and freely gave military secrets to the US to help them prepre for war. There was nothing comparable in Germany until it was much too late. The German dealings with Rumania, for example make intersting reading, and border on a form of blackmail rather than a coaltiion of nations trying to fight a war.
The alliance partners he di end up with were there for a variety of reasons, and sure they were weak in various ways. Thats because the strong one that had resisted him had all been trampled, and were never offered any olive branches to rebuild and join a greater European co-operative. But even the weak ones that germany found themselves stuck with were not optimised by the germans to get the most out of them....thjey were exploited, sneered at blamed for german failures and badly let down by them. Compare the performnance of say the Italians with the Free Polish forces. The Poles were a defeated nation, demoralised destitute....in far worse condition than the Italians, yet they (the Poles) fought maginficently and effectively. The italians....well, they had their moments, but they were generally a failure, but this failure was made worse by the Germans
Italy was all brio and no bite. Bad judgement and too much bravado without the economic muscle to back it up -- or cover Hitler's flank.
Japan could have been a great ally. Economically and industrially resourceful. Militarily bold and steadfast. BUT too far alway and with few common grounds for cooperation.
Hungary and Romania were stalwart allies, militarily and economically, but lacked industrial muscle and size.
If these countries could have somehow removed themselves from their geographical location and joined Britain as Allies, they would have performed far better. Sure there was some issues with the basic material, but the overwhelming problem was Germany, not her allies. unlike Britain, the Germans never attempted to deal with their allies as equals and gave scant regard to dealing with them fairly. Read Cianos diary about how the Italians found out about the invasion of Russia.
Czechoslovakia was a great industrial asset but again, not large enough to make a overpowering difference. Finland, as it always does, punched way beyond its weight
BUT WERE NOT AXIS members. Hitler should have been able to get much much more of occupied France ...
but you know the Germans and the French
clash of civilizations.
The potential resources at the germans disposal after June 1940 were enormous...potentially they could have rivaled the US in terms of outputs. Its a furphy to argue that Germany did not have the latent acapacity at her disposal to turn the war around. But the problem was the regime itself. After they had conquered western Europe, they didnt make any attempt to intregrate the economic resources of the occupied territories in a respponsible or beneficial way. They adopted a short term smash and grab policy and did not give much support to their allies either. After the fall of france, large quantities of french machine tools were simply uplifted and carried off to Germany, where they spent the war mostly in storage. This of course all but shut down French industry, along with the crazy exchange rates that were forced on these countries. Getting back to thos machine tools, the Italians were screaming for new stuff to replace the worn out gear in their own factories. Italy had been suffering under League sanctions since 1935 and had frittered away what little cash it had developing its colonies as showponies in which the money invested in them could never be recovered.
Now - compare these partners with Britain's (after the fall of France). Common language. Common traditions and histories. Wealth in both resources and industry.... and it only gets BETTER after December, 1941.
No disagreement that the alliance at the feet of the british at the end of the war was far and away more powerful at the end, but at the beginning it did not exist . The US was openly hostile to military involvement and was woefully unprepared for war. Churchilll pursued them relentlessly to get ready for war. If it had been a German style psyche driving the British, the US would not have entered the war, or prepred for it, in the way that they did. In the case of the Dominions, I cannot see Germany spending the money to set up schemes like EATS or providing a replacement cruiser (the Shropshire) for the lost HMAS Canberra
And we have not yet even started with the russians. They had no shared language, they didnt even have a shared set of values. They started out on the other side.....if Churchill had been another hitler, he would have left the Russians to their fate in June 1941, instead he dropped everything and strained avery muscle to support his new allies ("the enemy of my enmy is my friend")... The alliance that the Brits worked toward could have failed in so many ways, but didnt, why, I believe because of the british attitude of self sacrifice, at any cost, to form the alliance to defeat the germans. there was nothing comparable on the Axis side.
The Axis was an opportunistic "put-together", not an Alliance of equals, and it was doomed from the get go (and would have been with or without Nazi phony-baloney economics.)
Agreed, but that was by choice, not by necessity
But, otherwise, I agree with much you wrote, Parsifal, oh god of Doom
.
Which bits do we agree on???
God Of Doom.....never been called that one before....should I be happy????