Did this autist seriously believe he could win a two front war?

Did this autist seriously believe he could win a two front war?

There was another country that did in the same exact war, why is it an outlandish concept to you?

Germany again in WWI?

I think he means the US, USSR, and British commonwealth were surrounded by enemies on all sides desu

>USSR
>two front war

Nigga what

>muh 3 weeks of fighting Japan

But that still wasn't a two front war, USSR attacked Japan only after Germany surrendered.

are you implying that the USSR didn't single handily win the entirety of WWII? Did you really drink the American kool-aid?

War in Manchuria

Also before war Stalin was more fearful Japan would steal the east of Russia than he was Hitler would be crazy enough to break their pact.

Autist?

Only a non-Autistic faggot would let his ego carry him that far

He probably would have if it hadn't been for lend-lease.

By the time he was fighting a 2 front war he had already lost

Lend lease had little impact on barbarossa

>war in Manchuria

Happened A F T E R Germany surrendered.

They were specifically terrified of fighting a two front war.

Without lend-least the British would have been reduced to a stalemate ca. 1942 (those blockades worked breddy gud) and although I'm still not overly optimistic about Germany's chances in the east, them fighting on one front and the lack of American materiel propping up the Red Army would probably have at least prevented a "defeat".

They didn't expect the French and Brits to actually care about Eastern Europe

>British commonwealth were surrounded by enemies on all sides

Don't be cruel.
We know they have problems with oral hygiene, but water is not their enemy. Without the sea protecting them, Britain and Japan wouldn't survive for more then 100 years.

but before american lend lease hits the soviet union in any numbers you already have the defeats at moscow and stalingrad, i cannot see germany not losing at that point

Lend-lease supplied the soviet counteroffensive and on top of that defeats at Moscow and Stalingrad are much less certain if you're not also fending off the allies in the west.

A fair argument, although I think it would have simply delayed the inevitable rather than preventing it

Why? The Soviet army was incapable of launching the sorts of massive mobile counter-offensives they did after Kursk without both Anglo-American aid and also a Germany that is becoming increasingly distracted by both current invasions of southern europe and possible invasions of both western and northern europe.

>Lend-lease supplied the soviet counteroffensive and on top of that defeats at Moscow and Stalingrad are much less certain if you're not also fending off the allies in the west.
uhhh, what?
what counteroffensive is "supplied" by lend lease seeing as less than two percent of its tonnage arrived in russian ports (read: mostly not the frontlines) in 41?
what "allies in the west" is germany fending off at that point in time?
what does lend lease have to do with that?
are you implying that lend lease, signed into effect in spring 1941, somehow affected the battle of britain which ended in 1940?

He underestimated Russia severely

He thought that because Britain was an island, it's not really a front, so it won't be a real two front war like ww1. Even though they still had to garrison the whole shoreline of Western Europe with men they could use in the east, and the British bombings too were damaging German infrastructure and industry. They were also fighting in North Africa, but Hitler didn't considered that a land front either for some reason.

The Russian counteroffensives happened in 1943. The counterattacks at Moscow were a local thing done with fresh troops shipped over from Siberia.
Stalingrad was won in 43, largely because the now truck supplied Soviets could move a staggering amount of men.

42 was also when a lot of British LL arrived, although it was in force even earlier than that.

25% of Russian heavy and medium tanks at the battle of Moscow were British tanks. Far superior to the average BT-5 or 7 the Russians had at the time. They were also lost at the same ratio as other medium and heavy tanks, so the Russians certainly used them.

Well to be fair after France was overrun, there really wasn't a western front. You had the African front, to which you couldn't really deploy that many troops anyhow. For the rest the British just raided a few ports and bombed a few factories in France, not really what I would call a front. Hitler only really got himself a two front war after D-day, but at that point he was already losing to the Soviets.

>what is the Italian Front
>what is the bombing campaign
The second front existed in 1942 when America started bombing shit and invading Italy

>Western Allies were only responsible for 25% of German casualties but were responsible for 50% of troop deployments from Norway to Normandy to Italy to Greece plus the fuckton of the Luftwaffe both in the air and on the ground manning AA guns

Politically yes. He knew that winning the war militarily would be impossible.

The Italian front opened in 1943, and the British were the first to land in Italy. The Italian campaign was a combined British American effort, to which Hitler directed 10% of his forces. Considerable, but not comparable to the western front in ww1, and opened long after the eastern front.

>Stalingrad was won in 43, largely because the now truck supplied Soviets could move a staggering amount of men.
are you implying that stalingrad was won because of the 10% of all vehicles shipped by lend lease (which would include all vehicles, not just trucks) that made it to the soviet ports at the time? that's a pretty particular point of view, i am quite interested in the scholarly work on the subject, please share

>25% of Russian heavy and medium tanks at the battle of Moscow were British tanks. Far superior to the average BT-5 or 7 the Russians had at the time.
... yes, heavy and medium tanks are superior to light tanks...

i still don't see what does that have to do with "defeats at Moscow and Stalingrad are much less certain if you're not also fending off the allies in the west", whatever that is supposed to mean

I never claimed either, I'm just saying that the actual parts of the Soviet offensive occur in 43, when Lend Lease begins in full swing.

For the record, Hitler killed Blondi before he killed himself so the Soviets couldn't torture his dog. He loved that dog more than any human.

He was a dog himself

He almost won it.

If it wasn't for the juden american land lease, we would easily be living in a Nazi Empire right now

edgy

Dude, in 1943 some 40 percent of the German military was focused on western, southern and northern europe.

I'll take full blown retardation for 1,000 please. Oh shit daily double!!

Had he not underestimate the USSR due to the quick defeat of the Russian Empire in WWI and the hard time the USSR had with Finland. I believe the outcome would have been different.

The Germans were never able to effectively blockade Britain.

To be fair it wasn't just him having delusions of grandeur. The German military overestimated their strengths, underestimated their enemies, and didn't give a single fuck about logistics. The entire government was a bunch of hopped up larpers who were in full "we Reich now" mode.