The main argument you see Team Europe (lol) make is that European (specifically German) scientists (specifically Luftwaffles) would reverse engineer any modern tech Africa would have within DAYS. There was even a dude on Twitter who said that Germany would shoot down a MiG jet using FUCKING FLAK and then reverse engineer it.

Been sitting around thinking about this off and on for a couple days now, and it's really strange how I've never considered this more, but I've realized that the BOB wasn't really strategically necessary or sound in any way.

It completely eviscerated the Luftwaffe, which never achieved a single strategic victory after this battle. The result of this battle was to set back the Luftwaffe in ways it couldn't ever fully recover from. So why do it?

I figure you've got a couple options:

1.) Germany was really, seriously, honest to god considering invading Great Britain.

2.) Germany wanted Great Britain to think they were going to invade, so the BOB was essentially a feint to trick them into believing that and surrendering

3.) Goering and Kesselring are monumental idiots who's entire strategic train of thought was nothing more than "enemy that way, go fight enemy", even up to and including the complete destruction of their own forces.

And so each in turn.

I don't think an invasion was ever really in the cards. Evidence in support:

1.) The Luftwaffe never went after any naval targets, which is bizarre if you're actually planning a naval invasion.

2.) They never really started a concerted effort to martial men or materiale to support the invasion

Evidence against:

1.) They collected a bunch of barges, I guess? But that's actually easily explained if it was a feint, because collecting naval vessels for a naval invasion is pretty well expected and very conspicuous.

As for #2, the feint...

Evidence in support:

1.) It explains some of the strategic flaws in the invasion plan. No need to go after the Navy if you don't intend to invade. It makes more sense to do conspicuous damage in places the population can see, like cities and airfields.

Evidence against:

1.) Why in the absolute fuck-nuggets would you continue with a feint/ruse like this once it's become clear that they have no intention of surrender and are feeding your entire airforce into a fucking woodchipper?

As for #3, that Kesselring and Goering were complete fucking idiots:

1.) I mean, it's Herman Goering. That guy could fuck up an anvil. Look at his track record. He's a walking disaster. The Allies should have pinned a medal to his chest for all the Germans he got killed.

2.) I don't think that the Luftwaffe was ever really considered to be used as a strategic force like this. It was just aerial artillery for the army, nothing more, so they were very likely unprepared for this

3.) They fed their men and planes into a woodchipper and kept doing it without really accomplishing much of anything, and the stated goal of the battle wasn't ever really made clear. At some point, a non-moron would probably have stopped, but I know for sure that "not being a moron" definitely wasn't in Goering's kit

My conclusion?

It was a combination of a little bit of #2 and a massive helping of #3.

They were hoping that the aggressive action would get the Brits to surrender, but because they're absolute dipshits at some point they lost track of the entire point and just kept feeding men in because, well, it's just what they were doing and they were too dim to stop and ask themselves why they were still doing it even once it became clear early on that it wasn't going to work.

Does Hitler go ahead with Operation Sealion OR does the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe tells everyone in the German High Command to fuck off?

I dont think this would change the ultimate outcome that much but I feel like the army group north might have been deadlier especially for Leningrad, or if they were lucky they might have linked up with the finnish forces in Karelia. What do you guys think?

I have recently become quite interested in this battle after seeing the movies about it. (Both the 1960 and the 2004 versions.) It’s apparently seen as a big and proud heroic moment in Texas. However, I have also seen some people claim that the Texans were actually ”the bad guys” in this battle/war, and that their main reason for wanting independence from Mexico was in fact just being able to keep their ”right” to own slaves, whereas the Mexicans were about to abolish slavery and were all in all a much less racist and more equalitarian country, and would have actually ”deserved” to win the war (or their victory would have been a better outcome). So what is your opinion on these claims, and what is the overall consensus among historians on this conflict? Which view of the conflict is more correct, the pro-Mexican or the pro-Texan one?

And to anyone wondering what this has to do with Wehraboos: it’s a discussion about interpretation of history, and historical narratives where one side in a war is seen as ”the good guys / heroes” or ”the bad guys / evil” and whether or not these narratives are correct and to what extent, so it’s very much related to and similar to the WW2 / Wehraboo discussion. Just the same way there are also occasional discussions about WW1, Vietnam or the American Civil War here.

Today would have been Oskar Dirlewanger's birthday

Not so long ago I read a discussion here about how fans of the Nazi army had become much rarer. Coming across this survey, one realizes that there are still many of them, perhaps much more discreet. One wonders if they haven't migrated en masse to much more niche networks that were once reserved for the most fanatical among them.

More seriously, I would be curious to know how an army from 1940, which owes its success to exploiting a significant weakness in the French armies, can win against an army from the 1960s built to avoid this very weakness. Knowing that France possesses nuclear weapons, a real mechanized force and even a significant portion of the Maginot Line.

Sorry for my bad English.

Would they have lost quicker or slower? Would their resources have drained even quicker, or would they have managed to conquer more territory, prolonging their downfall and the end of the war to 1946 or 47?

Credit to u/laZardo for the meme image.

Italo Balbo was Marshal of the Air Force, Governor-General of Italian Libya and Commander-in-Chief of Italian North Africa. His plane was shot down by his own forces while landing in Tobruk in 1940.

My question above. Credit to: SHV Channel