Comments by "James the Other One" (@jamestheotherone742) on "Was Germany's Defeat Inevitable in WW2? Turning Point? And more... TIK Patreon Q&A 4" video.

@twirlipofthemists3201 The Germans didn't need to invade England. They just needed to starve it into submission and successfully blockade it from shipping and interdict its airpower.
16
With air superiority and ultimately supremacy, the Luftwaffe could have bombed the RN into oblivion and destroyed the ports that England depended on to not starve much less support the war effort. The BoB was a close run thing even when Hitler and his generals were easily distracted.
15
 @Alexandroslav But "Archangel" sounds better and "prettier" in English than "Arkhangelsk", which frankly sounds like gibberish to their ears. ;0
15
@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs Always "great" to hear from the Nazi apologists.
7
"All of which makes me think that Nazi foreign policy was inherently flawed from the start" If by "flawed" you mean pathologically psychotic, then yes.
4
@ Twirlip Of The Mists: It was only the "worst" because it failed. Far more horrific things have been carried out successfully by "evil" leaders/peoples in history. The Roman Empire, Mongol Invasions, etc. etc.
3
@roberthansen5727 And Germany couldn't possibly defeat France in six weeks either. Or catch the allies flatfooted in Scandinavia. Much like on the continent, most of the RN's supremacy was in obsolete and vulnerable surface combatants with the tactical and strategic thinking to go with it. Luckily for the RN, the KM brass on up to Hitler were even more outdated in their thinking than they were. So no. If we are playing the "what if" game, and if we presume that conquering England was a priority to Hitler and cronies, then everything you think you know about the BoB and Sea Lion would be different. The historical German war machine was designed and geared for a short, tactical continental war because that was their plan all the way back to when the general staff were navel gazing right after the 1918 armistice. They were ill equipped for amph. ops. and strategic airpower on purpose. But that does not mean that they couldn't have been. The money spent on those useless battleships and getting ready to stick their hands into the hornet's nest of Russia could have bought a lot of uboats, landing ships, and bombers.
3
@roberthansen5727 Oh and take your pills.
3
@twirlipofthemists3201 They didn't need to blockade the rest of the Empire. They just needed to cut off the head for both geopolitical and strategic (eliminate Britain as a staging point for a counter invasion). Hitler thought he could bully them into it with an air campaign. Obviously that didn't work. If the air battle had been successful, then Sea Lion might have been seriously pursued. But that didn't happen either because not only did the Brits not capitualte or collapse, they were already planning Barbarossa. Those last two were mutual causations BTW.
2
@roberthansen5727 Do you have this argument saved so you can knee-jerk cut and paste it every time this topic comes up? Please try and read my post again without assuming that I am saying that the Germans could have successfully invaded England in 1940-41. I am saying that that they didn't even try.
2
@johnburns4017 Split hairs much? Strategic intent from the German leadership was there in the late thirties. It guided acquisition and logistical decisions. There would have been generic "war plans" and intelligence gathering well before there were specific operational plans.
2
@Randisides You are thinking only of the resources the Germans chose to devote to the BoB that failed. Not what they would have needed to do to succeed.
1
@scottwillie6389 Uh no. Unless you mean Mel Brook's "Little Piece" History of the World Hitler skit.
1
@roberthansen5727 The Sea Lion you know was, but not the one that would have been planned if the Germans had been serious.
1
1. The war was lost when Hitler decided to break the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, no matter how you slice it, they could never win a two front war against Ango-Americans and the Soviets. 2a. Nuclear weapons. 2b. They needed the Turks for the manpower and the shortcut to the Caucuses. Failing to get Turkey to join the Axis made Barbarossa (not to mention N. Africa) untenable. 4. The viciousness of the SS / RSHA abusing and liquidating the civilian populations in occupied areas is what created the partisan problem and let the (surviving) population to support them in their rear areas. It was a persistent problem in all areas the Germans occupied and became worse as insurgency warfare produces a "natural selection" where the smartest fighters learn how to survive and operate against the enemy.. It became acute '43 onward because they Germans were becoming desperate for front-line units (Waffen-SS) and couldn't afford to tie troops up with occupation and suppression of partisans.
1