An interesting counterfactual for WWII is what happens if Hitler DOESN'T undertake a war of annihilation in the east? What happens if he promises to liberate them from the yoke of Stalinism. Of course his deranged ideology was the whole point of the conflict.
-
Näytä tämä ketju
-
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @DavidLarter
Andrew Roberts has a quip in Storm of War (2009) something to the effect of, had Hitler not been a Nazi, he could have won the war, but had he not been a Nazi, he wouldn't have started the war in the first place.
2 vastausta 1 uudelleentwiittaus 33 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @DavidLarter
And then there's Eco presenting fascism itself as a strategic trap: "Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy."
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 18 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @BretDevereaux
That's an interesting thought. Also, Storm of War is fantastic.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 4 tykkäystä
I think both insights are fundamentally right. The warped fascist worldview makes good strategic decision-making impossible because it is driven by an ideology fundamentally disconnected from reality and impervious to criticism. And agreed, Storm of War is very good.
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.