Hitler really wasn't that interested in England except for getting it out of the war.

- He was an anglophile and admired the english for their empire and culture.

- He hated France and blamed them for the Versailles treaty.

- In Mein Kampf (I've only read excerpts of the filthy (and boring) thing) he only refers to lebensraum in the east.

When I said historically I meant before the 20th century. And I didn't mean super close allies, more like shared interests. Which is really the only thing a state should have.

Now you're starting to slip.

The Vergeltungs (sorry, I'm not a teacher but I had to correct you) weapons were a distraction. No more. Just like most of those high techy things that they were famous for.

The weapons that mattered were the simple Stug III, Panzer IV and Me-109/FW-190.

Good point about ball bearings but they got most of them from neutral Sweden. Good old British politicking finally stopped that.

They were in France to knock the French out of the war so they could concentrate on Russia. I've read (sorry, no sources yet) that Hitler more or less hoped that they could come to an agreement with England. Historically England and Germany have mostly been allies. As were France and Russia. And Churchill was even more anti-Red then anti-Nazi.

Maybe I should have said "America centric view" instead of overly patriotic. No matter.

I was looking for this quote earlier in response to your "artillery killed more germans" post:

"The Jeep, the Dakota airplane, and the landing craft were the three tools that won the war."
General Dwight Eisenhower, Allied Supreme Commander, Europe.

Their manufacturing output increased every month until the very end of the war. Despite the air campaign.

On fuel you're right. The attack on Stalingrad was really a sideshow to the bigger move towards the Persian oil fields.

They got sucked into North Africa because Hitler wanted to save Mussolini's face.

And you could argue that the whole France/Lowlands thing actually freed up troops that otherwise would have needed to protect the western border. If it wasn't for that drunken lecher Churchill the English might very well have dropped out of the war after the battle of France.

I wasn't rooting for or against you. I was just teasing your overly patriotic view a bit.

Try to view things from different perspectives. That might be easier for someone not living in a superpower though.

That last bit was true in WW1. Not so much in WW2.

In my current mood I'd probably blame the holocaust on the Poles (Auschwitz, Warsaw; the evidence is overwhelming) so I think I'll stay here where I'm safe. :-)

The Germans were very railroad based and all logistical movement was west-east. Just like all what russians called roads. There was little north-south movement possible so the 3 german fronts couldn't support each other. And with their lowest army group on the way out of Russia towards Persia.

You might say that the germans were fighting a 5-front war at the time of Stalingrad. 6 fronts if you count the allied air offensive (which wasn't in full swing at that time).

Great point about soviet logistics. I'd like to read up on that. Never really thought about it, which is quite stupid if you think about the scale of their offensives.

You disappoint me Blight. You're ruining a perfectly good saturday afternoon troll I set up with facts and Poland.

The only reason for Poland is that nobody wants Russia and Germany to share a border.

You know what a relatively small shared border did with France and Germany, you fact and Poland loving person?

Admittedly the Elzas has coal and Poland only has Poles and Wodka. Lots of Wodka. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Except before 11 am. Which it isn't.

Your comment got me thinking. If the red army hadn't collapsed like it did then Hitler might not have overextended his army like he did.

On the other hand. Any army he could have send would be overextended anyway. Russia is just to big and it only gets bigger and wider the further you go.