re: Why is WW1 Germany overshadowed by WW2 Germany

quote:

---

WW2 has been (rightly) framed in more of a good vs evil context

---

In which we cemented power for two regimes that murdered between 10-20 times more than the "evil" team. It's just a fact.

quote:

---

Why is WW1 Germany overshadowed by WW2 Germany

---

There's many reasons why but the biggest is the holocaust.

But if it bothers you, you can roll over to the Poli Board where the majority think it never happened.

quote:

---

Britain had air and sea superiority after the battle of Britain.

---

Air superiority over what? Their own home island skies at best and this was only once Hitler decided the losses the Germans were suffering were not worth the endeavor as resources needed to be diverted to his actual war aims, which was to attack East. Invading Britain was never in Hitler's original war aims, which is why Germany's air force and navy were not tailored for such operations.

Britain always had control of the seas in respect to surface navy. They were not in any increased strength position after the Battle of Britain. Germany's surface fleet was constrained by geography which prevented them from being able to slip out into open seas without being detected and vulnerable. The U-boats however were very effective in 1940/1941 and could have continued to be very effective at choking Britain's supplies without US intervention to escort convoys, provide intelligence, and engage in anti-submarine warfare later on.

The point remains, absent Soviet and American entry to the war, Britain had zero prospects of defeating Germany. They remained a force to be reckoned with on the seas and still had strength in the Mediterranean and Africa/Middle East theaters but again, absent American and Soviet entry, Germany prevailing in these theaters was a far more likely scenario than Britain posing any threat to Germany on the continent. The British Empire was in survival mode and Germany was in position to dislodge them from their regional colonies which would eliminate their power projection and ability to pose a serious threat to Germany outside of the high seas. The geography of the Channel was essentially what prevented them from being outright conquered in 1940. Germany's geopolitical strength was only increasing at this point while Britain's was decreasing.

The war would have turned out very differently for Britain had Hitler been committed to settling the fight with them prior to moving on to his original war goals. Though while the British were ostensibly victors, riding the coat tails of the United States and USSR, they lost their empire as result of the war and were relegated to a regional vassal of the United States in their civilizational struggle against the Soviets. They went from a centuries long hegemonic power to a declining Island state who had to defer to American hegemony immediately after their historic "victory."

In the beginning of WWI the Germans and the British could go toe to toe, but after the Jutland Germany is basically confined to it's ports on the North Sea despite sinking more British ships than the British sunk of their's . The difference was the British had more ships coming online

quote:

---

The war would have turned out very differently for Britain had Hitler been committed to settling the fight with them prior to moving on to his original war goals.

---

Yes, but Hitler was on a tight time line. The USSR was preparing for a war with Germany. The Non-Agression treaty was going to be broken no later than Spring 1943 by one of the parties.

From an operational standpoint, Germany was not going to win WW2 after Churchill refused any cease fire. Germany could have settled in to fight Britian after that but it would have just been a resource drain and not allow them to build up forces for an invasion of the USSR.

I enjoy the debate about should Germany have focused on Moscow (like the Generals wanted) or focused on Ukraine and the Caucasus (like Hitler wanted) but I'm getting to the point in my thoughts where what made Barbarossa fail was not the ultimate objective, but the fact the Germans were not aligned in what the objective should have been. Pick one or the other, and completely align your forces to achieving that objective. Hitler was thinking strategically in regards to resources and the Generals were thinking operationally. Ultimately, they achieved neither objective (gaining the strategic resources nor taking Moscow) so it is very hard to say who was right, even conceding that Germany would have been able to defeat the USSR, which I'm not sold on. That is just too much space to hold (west of the A-A line) and there were not enough collaborators in the Baltics, Poland, Ukraine, etc... to free up enough German and other Axis manpower to drive as deep into Russia as they imagined.