Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

unblock

(56,110 posts)
19. ok, my one-liner was a simplification.
Tue Mar 18, 2014, 05:27 PM
Mar 2014

right, hitler would never have nakedly exposed the eastern front but committing *all* troops to the west. of course he would have left a defensive contingent, and dug in for that matter.

the war would have been very different, but people act as if attacking russia was a pure loss and idiotic move on hitler's part. people forget that he conquered quite a bit of land for a good long while, and was able to make use of the resources there during that time.

those resources helped keep the entire war effort going. i don't think the western front would have played out much better for hitler without the resources of the east.

nevermind that russia would steadily have gotten stronger and stronger in the absence of war against germany and with access to those same resources. long term, russia would then have been even more formidable.

hitler striking then was probably his best move, at least it made more sense than waiting.
japan used the same logic in attacking pearl harbor. that was their last best chance, strategically speaking. they may have awakened a sleeping giant, but we had already begun to stir.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

It's a stepped response, I agree. This is going to be a long game, at least until TwilightGardener Mar 2014 #1
He's Brezhnev, not Hitler. And, if you don't think Stalin would have stabbed Hitler in the geek tragedy Mar 2014 #2
exactly. stalin sits idly by while hitler commits all his troops to the west? hardly. unblock Mar 2014 #3
and, Hitler leaves his eastern flank exposed to Stalin? nope nt geek tragedy Mar 2014 #9
ok, my one-liner was a simplification. unblock Mar 2014 #19
He's just a rather typical politician showing he's "tough". Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #4
That's adorable. Bluenorthwest Mar 2014 #15
While Hitler ended up as a raving insane madman... I don't think he started out that way MNBrewer Mar 2014 #5
"Mein Kampf" is the ravings of a lunatic (nt) Nye Bevan Mar 2014 #10
I haven't read it MNBrewer Mar 2014 #16
Now that you mention it -- Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2014 #20
Why does everyone always bring up Godwin's Law on the internet? Vashta Nerada Mar 2014 #6
It's because there are too many people who don't know when they've lost the argument. reformist2 Mar 2014 #8
Godwin's law doesn't indicate that the person who mentions Nazis first loses. MNBrewer Mar 2014 #18
Oh please. An authoritarian leader of a diminished former superpower starts to grab back land Nye Bevan Mar 2014 #11
Crimea practically ran into Russia's arms. reformist2 Mar 2014 #7
In the plebiscite that followed it, 99.7% of Austrians approved of the Anschluss. Nye Bevan Mar 2014 #12
The Von Trapps only made up .3% of the population, I guess... n/t Benton D Struckcheon Mar 2014 #17
Crimea was depopulated of the indigenous Muslims at the point of a gun by the USSR Bluenorthwest Mar 2014 #14
Thank-you. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2014 #21
Yes, he's a Saint. tavernier Mar 2014 #13
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The good thing is that Pu...»Reply #19