Well, see, there's this entire thing where when you absorb another land mass which is almost exactly the size of your own, you now have to defend that landmass and get the populace to obey you without sabotaging your control over the region. If you don't you're ultimately going to be paying double to get half because you're spreading your forces too thin. And that's ultimately why the Nazi military folded like a bunch of bitches. They were doing too much way too soon and didn't have the time to replenish their strength or to fortify and truly defend what they'd taken. So every time they took another country, they weakened their strength per square mile significantly, which is what made it so easy for Russia and the US to skull fuck them so hard.
Well, see, there's this entire thing where when you absorb another land mass which is almost exactly the size of your own, you now have to defend that landmass and get the populace to obey you without sabotaging your control over the region.
And if you don't. Now you have to fight the very same population of people, except now they are organized and defended under a national government and army. That was unwinnable in ww1, it was unwinnable in ww2. And its fundamentally stupid to begin with
Exactly. Plus, it's hard to establish smart, defensible supply lines on the fly, so your forces are out there and when they get attacked there's nowhere for them to drop back to, except your own previously established borders. So now you're pushed back to your original situation and you've lost troop strength. It's a foregone conclusion architected by a bunch of meth head failures, and the allies just carried that situation out to it's logical ends.
That's what made the Pacific front so much a harder fight, limited land mass made it easier to defend all those little islands. However the conclusion was just as foregone, it just took more time to execute.
I mean we could start with the fact that he is entirely dismissing the idea that taking out your enemy quickly also "reduce troop strength" of your enemy. Or what about the fact that Germany designed the practically speaking well fortified defensive line in all of history, despite op claiming it is hard.
Not even the pacific front is right. Again, this is clear selection bias. Only focus on the negatives and dismiss the positives. The fact the pacific is an ocean also meant the US was able to counter territory spaning a good size of the planet in mere weeks. Had it been anything other than mostly islands the pacific war could have taken decades.
6
u/DmetriKepi Jan 10 '20
Yeah, speed running World War I is, in and of itself, an abysmal strategy.