Why we fight

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

the germans really did not have much in the way of allies.  the Romanians and Hungarians who historically hated each other and the Italians who basically march to war backwards with their hands up.  did not anticipate the brits response to poland and could not be dissuaded from turning east.   

Still, I think much more could have been made of their opportunities. What the Italian army lacked was good leadership and materiel. This could also be said of the Hungarians and Romanians. The Germans had those resources and more. What they increasingly lacked was manpower. I also think they could have done a lot more in appealing to the subject peoples of the Soviet Union. They made an effort but it was too little, too late. I have several recruitment posters for SS Division Galicia (recruited from the Ukraine) , some insignia, and recruitment oriented propaganda. Everything is dated 1944. Interesting stuff.

Worst of all, IMO, was the lack of cooperation with Japan. It came down to two separate wars.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

recruitment efforts aside the germans lacked the necessary manpower and the top down military leadership to win the war, thank god.  tactically they were with out a doubt without peer.  regardless many miscalculations were made by the polish corporal hitler.  1 allied reaction to the invasion of poland 2 the vast spaces and resources of russia 3 the ineptitude of  italy in war 4 malta and it's absolute importance to the africa corp 2a the switch from targeting radar and air fields to civilian sites re britain.  etc...

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

recruitment efforts aside the germans lacked the necessary manpower and the top down military leadership to win the war, thank god.  tactically they were with out a doubt without peer.  regardless many miscalculations were made by the polish corporal hitler.  1 allied reaction to the invasion of poland 2 the vast spaces and resources of russia 3 the ineptitude of  italy in war 4 malta and it's absolute importance to the africa corp 2a the switch from targeting radar and air fields to civilian sites re britain.  etc...

1. Allied reaction? You mean the "Sitzkrieg"? If Hitler had resolved to smash the U.K. before turning east the U.S. could never have had a meaningful impact in Europe. Letting England be was Germany's mistake. Underestimating England's resolve over Poland, which was too little and waaaay too late, mattered little. I will say that England bought civilization some time by resisting but let's not pretend that her outrage over Poland's demise ( a demise which her/our future ally the Soviet Union gleefully shared in) was a major stumbling block to Hitler. He turned east too soon, that's all.
2. Victory was within Germany's grasp in 1941 but U.S. entry into the war made a long war, the result of which would mean Germany's defeat unless she could conquer the Soviets quickly, likely.
3. Germany shared your sentiments and this attitude did nothing but contribute to her defeat. 
4. North Africa was a sideshow. So was Italy. The Western Front wasn't much more significant. I think Stalin said it best (paraphrased): "Britain provided the time, The US the money, Russia the blood."

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

recruitment efforts aside the germans lacked the necessary manpower and the top down military leadership to win the war, thank god.  tactically they were with out a doubt without peer.  regardless many miscalculations were made by the polish corporal hitler.  1 allied reaction to the invasion of poland 2 the vast spaces and resources of russia 3 the ineptitude of  italy in war 4 malta and it's absolute importance to the africa corp 2a the switch from targeting radar and air fields to civilian sites re britain.  etc...

1. Allied reaction? You mean the "Sitzkrieg"? If Hitler had resolved to smash the U.K. before turning east the U.S. could never have had a meaningful impact in Europe. Letting England be was Germany's mistake. Underestimating England's resolve over Poland, which was too little and waaaay too late, mattered little. I will say that England bought civilization some time by resisting but let's not pretend that her outrage over Poland's demise ( a demise which her/our future ally the Soviet Union gleefully shared in) was a major stumbling block to Hitler. He turned east too soon, that's all.
2. Victory was within Germany's grasp in 1941 but U.S. entry into the war made a long war, the result of which would mean Germany's defeat unless she could conquer the Soviets quickly, likely.
3. Germany shared your sentiments and this attitude did nothing but contribute to her defeat. 
4. North Africa was a sideshow. So was Italy. The Western Front wasn't much more significant. I think Stalin said it best (paraphrased): "Britain provided the time, The US the money, Russia the blood."

1 we may be agreeing.  hitler did not believe that the english would go to war over poland and did not anticipate their resolve with the fall of france.  clearly the english bought everyone time.
2 i think that victory was always illusory.  they never had the manpower or resources to fight effectively on three fronts and yes the north africa/italian theatres were significant.
3 what sentiments?
4 africa and the western front were significant in tying resources down that might have been deployed in russia.  yes russia bled profusely and they deserved to.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

recruitment efforts aside the germans lacked the necessary manpower and the top down military leadership to win the war, thank god.  tactically they were with out a doubt without peer.  regardless many miscalculations were made by the polish corporal hitler.  1 allied reaction to the invasion of poland 2 the vast spaces and resources of russia 3 the ineptitude of  italy in war 4 malta and it's absolute importance to the africa corp 2a the switch from targeting radar and air fields to civilian sites re britain.  etc...

1. Allied reaction? You mean the "Sitzkrieg"? If Hitler had resolved to smash the U.K. before turning east the U.S. could never have had a meaningful impact in Europe. Letting England be was Germany's mistake. Underestimating England's resolve over Poland, which was too little and waaaay too late, mattered little. I will say that England bought civilization some time by resisting but let's not pretend that her outrage over Poland's demise ( a demise which her/our future ally the Soviet Union gleefully shared in) was a major stumbling block to Hitler. He turned east too soon, that's all.
2. Victory was within Germany's grasp in 1941 but U.S. entry into the war made a long war, the result of which would mean Germany's defeat unless she could conquer the Soviets quickly, likely.
3. Germany shared your sentiments and this attitude did nothing but contribute to her defeat. 
4. North Africa was a sideshow. So was Italy. The Western Front wasn't much more significant. I think Stalin said it best (paraphrased): "Britain provided the time, The US the money, Russia the blood."

1 we may be agreeing.  hitler did not believe that the english would go to war over poland and did not anticipate their resolve with the fall of france.  clearly the english bought everyone time.
2 i think that victory was always illusory.  they never had the manpower or resources to fight effectively on three fronts and yes the north africa/italian theatres were significant.
3 what sentiments?
4 africa and the western front were significant in tying resources down that might have been deployed in russia.  yes russia bled profusely and they deserved to.

Yes, on points 1 and 2 I believe we are pretty much in agreement. I do think victory was achievable in 1941 but after the US entered the war it was over.

3. The Italians were as brave as anyone else but lacked good leadership amd materiel. I think the same is true of the Eastern Europeans in German service. The Germans recognized that the Italians and Easterners weren't performing well but instead of taking steps to improve that situation they chalked it up to inate cowardice/incompetence. They took a disdainful view of these men and yet still had rely on them time and again. It was incredibly foolish and stubborn of the German commanders not to shore up their allies interms of adequate training and armament. Stalingrad is a great example. 6th Army's flanks caved in not because Romanians make bad soldiers but because they were painfully short of anti-tank guns. Germany was rarely short of equipment. Even during the last days her factories still churned out unissuable weapons. Perhaps they believed the war would be short and it didn't matter? This disaster should have disabused them of any such notion.

4. Please don't misunderstand. I'm not saying that the Western Allies did not play a crucial role in defeating the Nazis. That's nonsense. The US basically fought a two front war and won. Pretty incredible. What I mean is that 80% of German armed forces were deployed in the East. This was where the ground war was decided.

Russia did deserve to bleed profusely and many felt as though the war had only solved 1/2 the problem. 
 

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

Stalingrad was 100% a hitler debacle of the highest order and the defining moment of the war.  the italians dragged the germans into north africa, could the germans have turned them into an adequete fighting force,  it would have taken some work.  you are absolutely correct in the assessment that our entry into the war, our industry and ability to use britain as a staging area was the writing on the wall.