4 ms·

The article is not very good. At the time (1943) the war was already lost for Germany(not for Japan). The US had entered the world fresh after watching people

The article is not very good. At the time (1943) the war was already lost for Germany(not for Japan). The US had entered the world fresh after watching people in Europe kill themselves for more than 2 years, and US industry was just too powerful for a country that was already weakened by two years of war. US at the time was the biggest saver in the world, and one of the leaders in industry production, while not in weaponry, change to weapon manufacturing is easy when you have industry. You can compare it with China today, while the US products were not as good as the Germans, they learned fast and they could simply outproduce them. For every good quality German tank, they could manufacture 10 not as good but who cares, American tanks, same with planes. Another important thing is that after two years of war and more planes on the air that today, supplies became scarce, specially for Germans, so they had to get by with less quality components out of necessity. Again, this is very normal in any war, at the start uniforms, and vehicles are new, morale is high, not so after years of seeing your country, your family, your friends destroyed.

sillysaurus3 13y ago
History is littered with examples of superior forces failing to achieve victory due to mismanagement or deception. Anyone who's tried to seriously play competitive games will say the same thing: it's not over until it's literally impossible to win. You're correct that the Germans had a supply problem. But that might not have been as decisive as Hitler's decision to sacrifice the entirety of the 6th Army at Stalingrad for mere prestige, for example. It was a stroke of luck that Hitler was so stupid as to not listen to his commanders and make so many blunders. Some have called Hitler our best ally in the war, since his mismanagement was responsible for so many strategic mistakes. If a different type of person had been in charge in 1943, there is a sizable chance the war could've been won. The production problems were hard, but not decisive to the point of making victory vanishingly unlikely.
- Gustomaximus 13y ago
  > It was a stroke of luck that Hitler was so stupid as to not listen to his commanders and make so many blunders. Some have called Hitler our best ally in the war, since his mismanagement was responsible for so many strategic mistakes. The British agreed with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Foxley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Foxley "The plan was submitted in November 1944, but was never carried out because controversy remained over whether it was actually a good idea to kill Hitler: he was by then considered to be such a poor strategist that it was believed whoever replaced him would probably do a better job of fighting the allies."

sillysaurus3 13y ago

History is littered with examples of superior forces failing to achieve victory due to mismanagement or deception. Anyone who's tried to seriously play competitive games will say the same thing: it's not over until it's literally impossible to win. You're correct that the Germans had a supply problem. But that might not have been as decisive as Hitler's decision to sacrifice the entirety of the 6th Army at Stalingrad for mere prestige, for example. It was a stroke of luck that Hitler was so stupid as to not listen to his commanders and make so many blunders. Some have called Hitler our best ally in the war, since his mismanagement was responsible for so many strategic mistakes. If a different type of person had been in charge in 1943, there is a sizable chance the war could've been won. The production problems were hard, but not decisive to the point of making victory vanishingly unlikely.

Gustomaximus 13y ago
> It was a stroke of luck that Hitler was so stupid as to not listen to his commanders and make so many blunders. Some have called Hitler our best ally in the war, since his mismanagement was responsible for so many strategic mistakes. The British agreed with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Foxley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Foxley "The plan was submitted in November 1944, but was never carried out because controversy remained over whether it was actually a good idea to kill Hitler: he was by then considered to be such a poor strategist that it was believed whoever replaced him would probably do a better job of fighting the allies."