usgubgub

While I do not completely agree with the guy, but he does bring up some good points. Was oil what broke the Tiger's back? I doubt it. However, it did force the Germans to spend time and resources experimenting with alternative fuels, such as wood gas. This produced some funky modifications we probably won't see in CM:


Back on topic. Why did the Germans lose the war? Potentially infinite reasons. However, I think many people overlook the diplomatic work of the Allies. The Germans had dubious alliances with Japan and Italy that only got them into their wars. They tried to not share technology with their eastern European allies and generally had limited support. Yet, the Allies managed to bring men from Brazil to India, train, equip them and put them on the front line. They had, also, great success dissuading  Spain from getting involved and persuading the Italian King to put Mussolini behind bars.
While the German hegemony spanned from the Atlantic to Moscow, from the Arctic to Africa -- they could only rely on themselves. They either could not, or did not want to, raise many troops form their vast occupied territories both in the West and East. For some reason, they had issues coordinating with the Romanians, Italians and Vichy France and generally relegated all foreign forces to rear-echelon work. As soon push came to shove, their allies turned on them. I do not think it is necessary to mention the debacles that were Yugoslavia and Belarus.
Why were the Germans not popular on the world stage? Was it too much of the stick, and too little of the carrot? Was it the lend-lease food and Hollywood? That's a discussion for a different thread.
 
 

I must admit that I am getting worried about this. The long silence and inactivity is unusual. Perhaps there is a deeper problem behind all of this that cannot be resolved. That would be a great shame. I find it difficult to explain what we are seeing (or not seeing) as just a bit of a sulk. I can't remember a patch taking this long after the new version release.

I must admit that I am getting worried about this. The long silence and inactivity is unusual. Perhaps there is a deeper problem behind all of this that cannot be resolved. That would be a great shame. I find it difficult to explain what we are seeing (or not seeing) as just a bit of a sulk. I can't remember a patch taking this long after the new version release.

Germany lost the war because of a combination of factors, but in my view the most important was the poor quality of its political leadership, starting with Hitler himself. The German leadership operated on assumptions that had no basis in what was the real strategic situation of the nation they were leading. There were plenty of leaders in high positions who were aware of some or all of the discrepancies between what efforts the nation could be asked to produce and what it would eventually find itself having to produce to cope with the situation brought about by the leadership's choices, but they were not high enough to matter and the key decisions were made by a small coterie whose blind ambitions and instincts for gambling with their people's futures knew no bounds. They were a bunch of chancers, blinded by initial good fortune.
The Soviet Union had an appalling beginning of hostilities in 1941, and its experience only began to turn around at the end of 1942, but its general strategic situation was always better than Germany's so they could afford to take losses that would have crippled Germany many times over. I include support from the UK and the US in that strategic situation, as well as Japan's decision not to attack the Soviet Union (they recognised that they had their hands full having to cope with an enraged US). 1941 was a close run thing, but close run is good enough. The Soviet Union, and Stalin, also enjoyed better luck.
With all of his faults, Stalin was a better leader than Hitler, and better suited to the peoples he was leading.
The German people have enormous potential, but their strategic situation is poor, stuck as they are in the middle of a continental mass with borders that are hard to defend. Twice in the past century, it has been proved that no matter how superior their land forces may be in like for like combat power compared to their adversaries, this vulnerability puts them in a bad place to start and win a war that they can't finish quickly.
The lack of oil, which by the way affected Japan, too, was just one given at the beginning that should have featured more in the leadership's calculations. Their strategy should have been very different from the outset, in 1933, when they seized power. Hitler, alas, was a man in a hurry. He wanted to finish the whole project while he still enjoyed vitality. He bent the whole nation's timetable to his own. He was not of sufficient stature to understand that what he wanted to accomplish might be achieved only if he was prepared to allow more time than what he had left to live to be taken, and built a political machine instead which would have stood a chance to continue to the objective long after he was gone.
The USA have done a better job of achieving and maintaining a dominant position globally than the Third Reich or the Soviet Union, at least so far. We are now witnessing China attempting something similar. So much for the "end of history".

Germany lost the war because of a combination of factors, but in my view the most important was the poor quality of its political leadership, starting with Hitler himself. The German leadership operated on assumptions that had no basis in what was the real strategic situation of the nation they were leading. There were plenty of leaders in high positions who were aware of some or all of the discrepancies between what efforts the nation could be asked to produce and what it would eventually find itself having to produce to cope with the situation brought about by the leadership's choices, but they were not high enough to matter and the key decisions were made by a small coterie whose blind ambitions and instincts for gambling with their people's futures knew no bounds. They were a bunch of chancers, blinded by initial good fortune.
The Soviet Union had an appalling beginning of hostilities in 1941, and its experience only began to turn around at the end of 1942, but its general strategic situation was always better than Germany's so they could afford to take losses that would have crippled Germany many times over. I include support from the UK and the US in that strategic situation, as well as Japan's decision not to attack the Soviet Union (they recognised that they had their hands full having to cope with an enraged US). 1941 was a close run thing, but close run is good enough. The Soviet Union, and Stalin, also enjoyed better luck.
With all of his faults, Stalin was a better leader than Hitler, and better suited to the peoples he was leading.
The German people have enormous potential, but their strategic situation is poor, stuck as they are in the middle of a continental mass with borders that are hard to defend. Twice in the past century, it has been proved that no matter how superior their land forces may be in like for like combat power compared to their adversaries, this vulnerability puts them in a bad place to start and win a war that they can't finish quickly.
The lack of oil, which by the way affected Japan, too, was just one given at the beginning that should have featured more in the leadership's calculations. Their strategy should have been very different from the outset, in 1933, when they seized power. Hitler, alas, was a man in a hurry. He wanted to finish the whole project while he still enjoyed vitality. He bent the whole nation's timetable to his own. He was not of sufficient stature to understand that what he wanted to accomplish might be achieved only if he was prepared to allow more time than what he had left to live to be taken, and built a political machine instead which would have stood a chance to continue to the objective long after he was gone.
The USA have done a better job of achieving and maintaining a dominant position globally than the Third Reich or the Soviet Union, at least so far. We are now witnessing China attempting something similar. So much for the "end of history".