General History Questions thread

AmateurHetman

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
I would say that size of force and casualties suffered don’t tell you much about a forces fighting capabilities. 

Although as a Pole, I’d love to say how good the 1st armoured Division was.
 

Cyborg Eastern European

Canis Mechanicus
Archduke
Best answers
0
Wasn't the Normandy operation mostly Commonwealth troops holding down the bulk of Axis attention, with US forces advancing* around through the rural areas?

*That in itself would lend them to increased casualty ratios, especially when in pretty much the most defensible flatland ever fought in.
Also, yes, this is heinously broad strokes, please don't kill me Jhess, if you're still around.
 

Wulfburk

Grandmaster Knight
Best answers
0
The bocage was pretty much effective yeah, but it did extend through most of the british and canadian sectors. Only around Caen did the region open up, but then that area proved a highly effective area for defense as well. The german defensive forces could look from above ground miles onto the british and canadian areas, watching any advance from afar. In this area, for example, just 4 hidden panzer IVs in a bocage at high ground could stop, and did stop, several british attacks in late june.

Maybe Americans just had more responsibilities and had more divisions on more fronts to take casualties? I dunno, this seems impossible to answer given your data and feels like the kind of thing Lindybeige would use to prove the supremacy of the English.
The casualties are limited to the normandy campaign, so losses in the pacific or in italy arent taken into account (if that is what you mean by other fronts, other than, say cherbourg or saint lo fronts).

And yeah it does sounds like lindybeige, but giving that the narrative is so one sided perhaps it takes such wild use of data and wild conclusions to then settle in the middle, heh.

Perhaps one variable that should be taken into account is the british combined use of independent tank brigades with churchill tanks, and specially churchill AVREs and crocodiles, with their infantry divisions. Giving the record of the crocodiles specially, in routing and forcing the surrender of german infantry units, this lightened the burden of the british infantry and made the british army, even if just slightly, more effective than the american, all other things being equal (effective in terms of fewer losses taken, with higher casualtes given to the enemy). IIRC from D+5 the british were already effectively combining their armoured brigades and infantry divisions in their advances and operations. And the british had almost as many tanks into their independent brigades in total, in normandy, as the number of tanks in the actual armoured divisions.

Another point is that per division the british had way more artillery pieces than the american divisions. IIRC around 80 to 50. This difference in firepower per division is quite notable. AND the british per division had 50 anti tank guns in 1944, with most of them being 17 pounder. In contrast i believe (though i might be mistaken on this), the americans still relied on their version of the 6 pounder, which did not even have the improved ammunitions the british had developed at the time already (not only APDS but other types as well). Though, the americans fielded several tank destroyer regiments that would do the role of the anti tank guns. This might explain the bigger tank losses the americans had.
 

Antonis

Marquis
WBWF&SVCNW
Best answers
0
Hey, guys! A couple of questions about the middle of the 13th century(~1220-1270 AD):

[list type=decimal]
[*]Did they use pavise shields in this time frame? And if yes, how? In hand to hand combat, or just as 'screens' against arrows during sieges etc.
[*]Same question for bucklers. Did they use those then, how did they look, if so, were they for civilian or army use
[*]Were there any organzied mercenary companies that we know of and have sources of? Or they were just the regular unnamed mercs here and there?
[*]Is there any visual evidence of hats and generally head-wear worn by women? Like frescoes, bas reliefs etc. Not the Dark Armoury/LARP crap.
[/list]

Thank you very much!
 

AmateurHetman

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
Antonis said:
Hey, guys! A couple of questions about the middle of the 13th century(~1220-1270 AD):

[list type=decimal]
[*]Did they use pavise shields in this time frame? And if yes, how? In hand to hand combat, or just as 'screens' against arrows during sieges etc.
[*]Same question for bucklers. Did they use those then, how did they look, if so, were they for civilian or army use
[*]Were there any organzied mercenary companies that we know of and have sources of? Or they were just the regular unnamed mercs here and there?
[*]Is there any visual evidence of hats and generally head-wear worn by women? Like frescoes, bas reliefs etc. Not the Dark Armoury/LARP crap.
[/list]

Thank you very much!
1. Pavise shields were first documented to have been used in Italy, around 1230-1260. However, these records don’t stress that the shields were anything new, so they could have been used earlier as well. As for their use, it would have been much like the Pavesarii (pavise bearers) who would carry the shields and deploy them for ranged units to use as cover.
2. Buckler-style shields were used even in antiquity. Bucklers as you ask, were used as early as the 12th century, so they would have been seen on the timeframe you stated. I’m not sure about this next part, but I see bucklers as being used primarily outside of military conflict, due to their uselessness as a shield against projectiles.
3. The famous free companies didn’t really show up until the 14th century. But there were still free companies as early as 12th century. The French called them ‘Routiers’.
4. There are primary sources depicting both noble and peasant female headwear:
https://images.app.goo.gl/tinUpgLsd9WjUgVj9
https://images.app.goo.gl/34tMWy35thCKRnar5
 

Wise_apple

Regular
Best answers
0
yalazur said:
quick question:

in the jambu inscription, which is a legacy of Tarumanegara, which is an Indian culture kingdom of 4 ad
there was something written as follows:

Dashing, admirable and honest about his task is the peerless human leader known to Sri Purnawarman who once (ruled) at Taruma and whose famous armor is not penetrated by enemy weapons.

armor. never in any other statues or reliefs of indian culture, or atleast, indonesian indian culture did they depict any armors. it was always barechest, maybe a necklace or some kind of fancy glittering ornament, but i never saw where ones depict armor from that era.

my question, is what they ment by armour? did they call those ornament armour? or there is indeed an armour from that era that i happen to be have not stumbled yet? if thats the case, could you bring example? thanks in advance.
I'am sorry i must disagree with you

First of all we don't know exactly if our people (i mean nusantara people)are really fighting naked or without armor or cloth the evidence or opinion/source about our ancestor from tarumanagara-majapahit era go to battle without clothing/armor or fighting naked, barechest, or half-naked are mostly came from dutch colonial era record that seems dubious and obviously came with ulterior motive.

Given most of those source came from colonial era netherland historian or record, it's possible if they purposely depict and record them that way as part of divide et impera during those colonial era, those scheme and lies is common trick the western colonial era use to make our ancestory look primitive, to weaken spirit and legacy people they oppress, because our ancestor isn't the only one they depicted that way.

Look at austronesian, look at american indian, look at african people!, they suffer from same scheme to make them lose their identity so they can never united and can be easily conquered by western colonialism!.

it sad that those bias still strong to our people till this day both in common or academic people resulting in loss of national identity.

and if those indonesian millenial historian tell you that way, tell them that they are biased or caged in dutch political correctness history of ancient indonesian.

But i think not all the record is lost, well few they admit in public. for example:

Bugis Chainmail or waju rante (Baju Rantai) (Possibly used widely by nusantara people too):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Bugis_Chain-Mail_Vest.jpg

Laminar Armor or waju lamina (Baju Lamina):
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baju_Lamina

Scale Armor/Scale jacket/jerkin or waju empurau (Baju Empurau):
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baju_Empurau

Chainmail or waju rante (same as above but in offincial dutch wiki):
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baju_Rantai

Moro Helmet or helm/topi moro (Helm Moro):
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro-Hornhelm

War Jacket (Possibly made of padded linen):
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesische_Kriegsjacken

Note that some of illustration in wikipedia above are depicted by dutch historian, so don't expect it to be the actual shape or model of the armor.

It's also possible that Lamellar (armor or vest) is also used widely in nusantara (i.e Indonesian), given of how easily it to be mass produced and cheaper alternative to mail and scale armor. And also given of the fact that their neighbouring country such as japan, ayutthaya (Khmer), vietnam, and other south asian nation wear some kind of armor in their history making it hard to believe if nusantara that was once formed great empire such as majapahit and srivijaya didn't fighting little no armor in their history.

I mean how the hell they can defend themselves when you fighting barenaked while your greedy neighbouring equiping their army with armor?!, And the fact that nusantara was once have an empire, it making it more hard to believe if they can't afford armor for their army, afterall is always better have armor/clothing than nothing.

heck even the fact that nusantara (medang kingdom) once conquer Cambodia and igniting the revolt that give birth of united Khmer Empire!? (Raja Jayavarman II)

I still believe that there's more of indonesian armor, attire and culture that still hidden both purposely by colonial dutch or just because ignorance of descendant of nusantara.
 

reza

Sergeant
Best answers
0
well first of all im asking a question there so how can you disagree

and second of all if my memory being right, based by George Coedes book's of Indianization of Southeast Asia, it seems like indeed our civilization are kinda late in term of technology, while other nation had reached iron age. our pre-indian civ never reached that age, and skipped right into Indianized state nation when those refugees from south india came into our coast, boosting an already flowing of Indian Immigation to Nusantara, and mind you im talking about 4 ad nusantara here, i never saw any source that depicts armor of ayutthaya and vietnam or etc at that era either, so fighting armorless i think is totally possible. if you're talking about 12th-14th centuries armor then it would be of different topic. and the following is not based on any actual fact, but i think the way you think that colonializer tried to degrade our history is rather funny, because if anything, its the foreigner that discovers all these ancient things that our country are priding upon, if they never existed, i doubted that we'd know what majapahit even is, with our people destroying every statues and things the falesly judge as mystics and idolous. and by that empire you mention, it aint even clear by of which form of empire Sriwijaya and Majapahit really is, afaik we dont know the relation between the main state and the vassal state, even Sriwijaya couldn't careless about the mainland, they just want to guard them ports. and battle account are often after the fact from the winning side. detailed battle accounts afaik are very, very scarce.
 

Wise_apple

Regular
Best answers
0
yalazur said:
well first of all im asking a question there so how can you disagree

and second of all if my memory being right, based by George Coedes book's of Indianization of Southeast Asia, it seems like indeed our civilization are kinda late in term of technology, while other nation had reached iron age. our pre-indian civ never reached that age, and skipped right into Indianized state nation when those refugees from south india came into our coast, boosting an already flowing of Indian Immigation to Nusantara, and mind you im talking about 4 ad nusantara here, i never saw any source that depicts armor of ayutthaya and vietnam or etc at that era either, so fighting armorless i think is totally possible. if you're talking about 12th-14th centuries armor then it would be of different topic. and the following is not based on any actual fact, but i think the way you think that colonializer tried to degrade our history is rather funny, because if anything, its the foreigner that discovers all these ancient things that our country are priding upon, if they never existed, i doubted that we'd know what majapahit even is, with our people destroying every statues and things the falesly judge as mystics and idolous. and by that empire you mention, it aint even clear by of which form of empire Sriwijaya and Majapahit really is, afaik we dont know the relation between the main state and the vassal state, even Sriwijaya couldn't careless about the mainland, they just want to guard them ports. and battle account are often after the fact from the winning side. detailed battle accounts afaik are very, very scarce.
sorry for seeming coming rude and ignorant before, i tend come a rather sensitive when it come to nusantara history topic.

its funny to think when you said the fact that our people was destroying statues and things they judge as mystics and such when their ancestor who lives during those time doesn't actually care about it. And it is not like they the one who discover all those things.

Many record scattered in all nusantara often found in many royal family, such as hikayat samudra pasai, babad tanah jawi, isn't those was actually the fact that we or our ancestor was actually recording their history? I think not all discovery can be credited to foreigner and those bias about how our people so indebted by those foreigner and our people are just ignorant mongkey who label anything their ancestor left as mystic and idolous so they must destroy them was very shallow. They didn't discover everything is just we seldom search it inside ourselves, we always doctrinated to look outside for our own history.

When the fact that no sovereigh nation should look any information about their own history from outside resource before they done they research for looking into inside/local resource. It was identity suicide to do so. If anything you get from outside resource was used to actually reinforce what you already discover inside, not otherwise.

It's not that those record was scarce, We just doesn't look into ourselves enough find it and leave those matter in the hand of outsider. :grin: :grin:
 

reza

Sergeant
Best answers
0
When i said about destructive manner, i was referencing to current/more modern people of indonesia who at a time was very much indifferent and or right up “decline” any aspect of ancient culture because of slowly yet steadily westernization by the colonist, and the rise of a certain religion that naturally are opposed many aspects of Ancient Nusantara

I never reference the people of my beloved country as monkey who cant write stuff.
I said its the foreigner that sparks interest of a long time forgotten topic that actually very important, very important that the notion of majapahit was used as a uniting reason of this thousands of island archiepalago

And im not saying that we should blatantly believe only the foreign source as a cut clear identifier of our own history.
Im saying study that available currently are mostly from foreign sources, and many of our knowledge came from them, and While i understand why you feel skeptic by basing our identitiy solely on foreign source, Declining all foreign sources to base our identity is not a completely good thing either

Thats the vibe im getting by your posts anyway, like that waju rante thing you posted that you presented to me as an armor of 4ad was actually an 18th century armor.

So its clear that our point of agreement here is that obviously we the people of United Country Of Indonesia should study more of our own history.

Because the way it is now, is very very vague and biased, in all era. Like that time when we ignore that hindu buddism states is living together with local states. That in Java homosexuality is a mundane thing, that whole BERSIAP era where its a massacre **** show, and dont get me started on the commie massacre and all the atrocities bung tomo did on the so called “hero’s day”

I wont provide above source for you because you can definitely find them online

So its clear that our point of agreement here is that obviously we the people of United Country Of Indonesia should study more of our own history.
 

Wise_apple

Regular
Best answers
0
yalazur said:
When i said about destructive manner, i was referencing to current/more modern people of indonesia who at a time was very much indifferent and or right up “decline” any aspect of ancient culture because of slowly yet steadily westernization by the colonist, and the rise of a certain religion that naturally are opposed many aspects of Ancient Nusantara

I never reference the people of my beloved country as monkey who cant write stuff.
I said its the foreigner that sparks interest of a long time forgotten topic that actually very important, very important that the notion of majapahit was used as a uniting reason of this thousands of island archiepalago

And im not saying that we should blatantly believe only the foreign source as a cut clear identifier of our own history.
Im saying study that available currently are mostly from foreign sources, and many of our knowledge came from them, and While i understand why you feel skeptic by basing our identitiy solely on foreign source, Declining all foreign sources to base our identity is not a completely good thing either

Thats the vibe im getting by your posts anyway, like that waju rante thing you posted that you presented to me as an armor of 4ad was actually an 18th century armor.

So its clear that our point of agreement here is that obviously we the people of United Country Of Indonesia should study more of our own history.

Because the way it is now, is very very vague and biased, in all era. Like that time when we ignore that hindu buddism states is living together with local states. That in Java homosexuality is a mundane thing, that whole BERSIAP era where its a massacre **** show, and dont get me started on the commie massacre and all the atrocities bung tomo did on the so called “hero’s day”

I wont provide above source for you because you can definitely find them online

So its clear that our point of agreement here is that obviously we the people of United Country Of Indonesia should study more of our own history.
I agree with you. we indeed need to dig more of our own history, i was just fear if someday our descendant might lost their own identity, and in return lost their legacy and pride.

It's true that the whole concept of majapahit was primary factor of unification reason, but there's also a prophesy that common people till today still believe such as Jangka Joyoboyo, or the fact that many royal families in nusantara (or their kingdom) have their legacy to majapahit royality / empire, and many of them after the fall of the empire sought to revive and claim their legacy of majapahit empire, the fact that it was uniting factor was not a new idea in memory of our people, it just our current generation that somehow forget those idea and legacy. :grin: :grin:

And it also seems kinda strange because those certain religion was never actually have anything to do with ancient nusantara, our ancestor during and before colonial era have never opposed such aspect in fact they kind of preserve it. The one of the saint was also use and preseve one of ancient aspect of nusantara such as shadow puppet. It kind of ironic actually because the fact that their follower nowaday was suddenly so opposed to ancient nusantara aspect, i fear if something happen to those community of those certain religion to make them turns againts their own legacy.

And sorry for being skeptic, i just always thought to approach information about our own history from outside resource with skepticsm, to avoid of being too biased from the information i get from there.

Btw, about those source like waju rante, i was thinking if it actually much earlier than 18th, but i think it's safe to assume they were used by our people from earlier 13th up 15th century during imperial era. ah i also happen to had some illustration about ayuthayya (or khmer?) depicting their confrontation with chams using some kind of lamellar/laminar armor, maybe that can be used as reference to more earlier southeast asian armor

 

Jhessail

Panzervixen
Master Knight
Best answers
0
Cyborg Eastern European said:
Also, yes, this is heinously broad strokes, please don't kill me Jhess, if you're still around.
Always lurking!

But to answer the question, there was no American superiority. American forces were generally poor when compared to both British and German - but that's because they hadn't been fighting since 1939. The big issue was that many American officers were so full of themselves that they ignored advice from their allies or didn't seek it out in the first place. This arrogance led to wholly unnecessary casualties in the early stages. Having said that, the Americans were the best at using SCIENCE! in order to win the war so as an institution, they improved fast, and naturally some individuals and units performed excellently from the get-go - like the 99th Infantry Division that fought in the Ardennes without any prior combat experience and did amazingly well - while others needed a lot of time and experience to improve, while yet some never amounted to much at all.

Where did you get those numbers by the way, Wulfburk?
 

Wulfburk

Grandmaster Knight
Best answers
0
British armour in the normandy campaign by john buckley and the appendix on Normandy 44 by james holland, iirc
 

Jhessail

Panzervixen
Master Knight
Best answers
0
Oh, I forgot to come back to this! Yes, those are both excellent books with well-referenced sources so their numbers are most likely correct.
 

Abraxium

Regular
Best answers
0
What happened to the star forts of Europe? There are plenty remnants of walls still standing in Europe, many much earlier than the introduction of star forts and definitely less space consuming. Were they merely torn down as technology and tactics surpassed their defensive importance or to make room for an expanding city?
 

Wulfburk

Grandmaster Knight
Best answers
0
Was the german nation in 1914 in a much better situation, in relation to its peers, than the german nation in 1939/1940, also in relation to its peers?

Im finding the german effort during WW1 to be much more impressive than the german effort in ww2. This includes the disparity in their industrial potential in relation to the other nations. One example (not to be generalized as we know the situation of the russian empire, but nonetheless), the Russian Empire was outclassed by the German Empire in the production of everything, pretty much enormously, while during ww2 the Soviet Union outproduced the germans in most areas.

Basically, the whole course of ww2 falls upon one thing: the disastrous fall of france which was the result of strategic blunders, and not of any alarming disparity in the war effort between france and germany. In this way, the fall of france was anything but a foregone conclusion. And if a similar scenario happened in 1914, the german empire would've taken way more advantage of it than nazi germany. The facts that after a miracle such as the fall of france, the UK and the british empire as a whole was still unassailable, and that Germany had to rush to invade the soviet union, as every year that passed its situation worsened in comparison to the UK and the Soviet Union, should speak wonders.
 

Kentucky James VII

BioAfrikaner
Duke
Best answers
2
The difference is that in 1939 they were controlled by fascists, and one of the defining features of fascism is the inability to properly conduct wars without believing their own national / ethnic arrogance and grossly underestimating the enemy.

Hitler and his officers made sweeping assumptions which would have been incomprehensible to a military in 1914. After the fall of France, their arrogance reached a fever pitch which culminated in the assumption that they could force the entire Soviet Union to surrender in a few weeks, despite not having enough petrol to drive all the way to their objective even if they wanted to. But to a extent they had to believe this nonsense, because Germany had so few resources that the only way they could continue to function as a state was to keep waging prussian-style lightning wars against unprepared enemies who didn't take them that seriously. But the moment they fought against a state which didn't just capitulate within a month, it was over.
 

Jhessail

Panzervixen
Master Knight
Best answers
0
Ok, I'm bit drunk but I'll try to answer to the best of my abilities:

Okay so you're actually asking two separate big questions.

1 - German Empire 1941 vis-a-vis French, British, Russia compared to Nazi-Germany 1939 vis-a-vis French, British, Soviets, America

and

2 - what are the reasons for German successes in WW2 since you presume that it was even weaker against its opponents in 39 than it was in 14.
 
Last edited:

Jhessail

Panzervixen
Master Knight
Best answers
0
So unless someone posts before I finish this post, this will be a double-post but that can't be helped. Let's tackle the first question:

1 - German Empire 1941 vis-a-vis French, British, Russia compared to Nazi-Germany 1939 vis-a-vis French, British, Soviets, America
"Was the german nation in 1914 in a much better situation, in relation to its peers, than the german nation in 1939/1940, also in relation to its peers?"

Now this is, unfortunately, a misleading question in the first place. It's a completely unfair comparison as well due to quite different circumstances in the world. I know, it seems like a perfectly logical and valid question to ask and my students ask it as well because it's an interesting topic. But it's not good academic practice. You wonder why?

The German Empire in 1914 was fully aware of the complicated diplomatic treaties that were binding European nations to each other. In fact, that drove their strategic thinking. Simplified: if Austria goes to war with Serbia, then Russia will go to war with Austria to protect Serbia, Germany will have to go to war with Russia to protect Austria, and France will go to war with Germany to protect Russia. So Germany wasn't foolishly making enemies left and right, it was a calculated risk that had to be taken. Ever since the end of the Napoleonic wars, the Prussian/German General Staff had emphasized the need to end wars quickly and the vulnerability of Germany to multi-front wars.

And in the early 20th century, the key to winning a war was seen to be speed and aggression. With its superior mobilization system and rail network, German military planners rightly calculated that they could get their armies to the field faster than their opponents. And because there was no way to avoid fighting both Russia and France at the same time, all planning had to hinge on that. Since France could mobilize faster than Russia, it would be absolutely necessary to attack France first while Russia was still gathering its strength, and knock them out of the war, so that Germany could then focus on East.

This plan did not change on its main points between WW1 and WW2. It could not because geography does not change.

So the Kaiser did not calculate tons of steel produced or thousands of babies born or anything like that. Such statistics were immaterial because the war would be short and decisive as any long war would turn against Prussia/Germany, exhausting its resources as it would ALWAYS be facing a multitude of enemies. It didn't matter that attacking Belgium would bring Britain into the war because Britain couldn't impact the progress of the war before it was all decided in any significant manner

So if you start your analysis by comparing industrial statistics or manpower between countries, you've already lost the plot. Those statistics did not matter for Berlin in 1914 and they did not matter for Berlin in 1939.

Naturally, it is useful to produce such statistics so that we have accurate historical data available to help analysis of events. But we should not make the mistake of assuming that decision-makers were fully aware of all the relevant facts and suppressed all emotional reactions in favor of cold logic.I've seen it many times - someone posting how Germany was running out of mineral X in 1940 or oil in 1944 or food in 1942 or cash in 1939 and that meant IMMEDIATE END OF EVERYTHING in their mind. Yet they can never answer how it was then possible for the Nazis to keep fighting until the bitter end in May 1945.

So, to answer your question: such relative strengths were as meaningless to the Kaiser in 1914 as they were to the Führer in 1939 and you shouldn't base your analysis of either war, or the events leading to the beginning of either war, in the statistical analysis of resources.

Now, to the second question:
what are the reasons for German successes in WW2 since you presume that it was even weaker against its opponents in 39 than it was in 14.
"Basically, the whole course of ww2 falls upon one thing"
Nonsense my dear Wulfburk. You are now applying hindsight into the contemporary situational analysis. In other words, you are using our current knowledge that is almost perfect, to judge the decisions of historical actors who only had access to fragmentary and often erroneous information. This is the same sort of faulty logic that dictates that Germany lost the war the moment they invaded the Soviet Union or when they declared war against the United States, or that failing to capture Moscow in 1941 meant that Germany lost the war and a whole bunch of other similar claims.

There was no compelling reason for France to surrender in 1940. Russia lost, in percent, more of its land in 1941 and kept fighting. France surrendered because they believed that they had lost the war and that it was pointless to keep fighting. There was no compelling reason for Germany to keep fighting in 1945. The war was clearly lost, everyone could see it. Yet they illogically kept clinging to false hope, that some sort of miracle would happen and kept killing and dying for five more months.

You're also thinking that what historically happened was the only possible way for France to capitulate when there certainly were other possibilities. You're claiming that 1940 was an extraordinarily abnormal situation and that the Miracle of 1914 was a far more acceptable, normal outcome. I could just as easily claim that the French success in stopping the Germans in 1914 was an extraordinary feat that could never be replicated and that the success of 1940, while great, was not outside the usual realm of possibility.

The facts that after a miracle such as the fall of france, the UK and the british empire as a whole was still unassailable
Not true. No, I'm not talking about Seelowe, that was most likely always going to fail and probably would never have been attempted for real. But the British Empire certainly was not unassailable. OKW and OKH had entirely workable, solid plans for taking Gibraltar and Egypt and the Middle-East. That would change the Battle of the Atlantic radically as well as change the balance of power in Asia even further to Japan's advantage. Would that have been enough? Nobody knows, but my point is that you're making a far too strong of a statement. It's easy to claim that Churchill would never give up but he was never pushed far enough to test that.

that Germany had to rush to invade the soviet union, as every year that passed its situation worsened in comparison to the UK and the Soviet Union
Now this is a completely illogical statement and I don't know where you're getting it. Hitler rushed to attack the Soviet Union because that was always his ultimate ideological aim and goal: the destruction of Communism and the Asiatic menace. Germany did not rush to attack the Soviet Union out of some need to beat the enemy before they got too strong - you've played too much Hearts of Iron. Neither was the UK's industrial power somehow growing more rapidly than Germany's. Remember that Germany did not, economically and industrially, go to total war footing until mid-1942. Britain did it in mid-1940 and Russia did it in late-1941. And of course, both could rely on the United States, for supplies, for food for raw materials, for specific products, and for equipment.

I'm not saying that Germany could have won the war - that's ridiculous and impossible. But, it's similarly ridiculous to say that Germany had lost the war the moment it started. There are several points in WW2 where, if things had gone differently, the war could have ended differently. Using 20/20 hindsight to judge contemporary decisionmakers and elevating statistics over everything else leads only to hyperbolic nonsense like the first answer you got from Kentucky James VII.