Could the United States conquer the planet?

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="SilentFireX"] I had the very same reaction :PLightR

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="SilentFireX"] I had the very same reaction :PLightR

Yeah.. I am actually. I read the bookks alot and if anything Ww2 is going on history channel, id watch it too. So what are you talking about? Just because you disagreed on what i just said means you dont know anything about ww2. Shoo shoo.sethman410

Playing video games and watching the History Channel doesn't make one an expert. Hell, neither does reading a few dozen books on WWII. Everyone has done that. How many degrees have you earned relating to your alleged field of expertise? How many years have you spent researching source material, writing systematic analyses and documenting historical events? How many years have you worked in the field you claim to be established in?

My money is on 'none' to all of the aforementioned questions.

Never claimed to know anything about WWII--but some of the remarks you have made are beyond silly.

I am an expert in economics because I've read about it. I'm investing every penny I have on gold as we speak because the Federal Reserve is destroying the U.S. currency.

[QUOTE="sethman410"]

and play little RTS ever. So... I think I win.sethman410

play little RTSsethman410

Are you f***ing serious?

[QUOTE="SilentFireX"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

:lol:

sethman410

I actually dream of being an WW2 historian one day. I teach my mom many things about it. Im pretty much an expert.

There is far more to World War II and history in general than could ever be learned by watching History Channel documentaries, numerous fictional WWII movies, and an HBO fictional series based on true events.

The History Channel very commonly makes errors in things and tends to oversimplify a great deal of information, and when watching it, it's important to attempt to back up their claims with outside research.

[QUOTE="sethman410"]Yeah.. I am actually. I read the bookks alot and if anything Ww2 is going on history channel, id watch it too. So what are you talking about? Just because you disagreed on what i just said means you dont know anything about ww2. Shoo shoo.coolbeans90

Playing video games and watching the History Channel doesn't make one an expert. Hell, neither does reading a few dozen books on WWII. Everyone has done that. How many degrees have you earned relating to your alleged field of expertise? How many years have you spent researching source material, writing systematic analyses and documenting historical events? How many years have you worked in the field you claim to be established in?

My money is on 'none' to all of the aforementioned questions.

Never claimed to know anything about WWII--but some of the remarks you have made are beyond silly.

I am an expert in economics because I've read about it. I'm investing every penny I have on gold as we speak because the Federal Reserve is destroying the U.S. currency.

EDIT: oh for chrisssakes, not many people would read that many ww2 books as much as i do. i think you make such post because your jealous! lol.

it's important to attempt to back up their claims with outside research.SilentFireX

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"]Yeah.. I am actually. I read the bookks alot and if anything Ww2 is going on history channel, id watch it too. So what are you talking about? Just because you disagreed on what i just said means you dont know anything about ww2. Shoo shoo.sethman410

Playing video games and watching the History Channel doesn't make one an expert. Hell, neither does reading a few dozen books on WWII. Everyone has done that. How many degrees have you earned relating to your alleged field of expertise? How many years have you spent researching source material, writing systematic analyses and documenting historical events? How many years have you worked in the field you claim to be established in?

My money is on 'none' to all of the aforementioned questions.

Never claimed to know anything about WWII--but some of the remarks you have made are beyond silly.

I am an expert in economics because I've read about it. I'm investing every penny I have on gold as we speak because the Federal Reserve is destroying the U.S. currency.

EDIT: oh for chrisssakes, not many people would read that many ww2 books as much as i do. i think you make such post because your jealous! lol.

You seem to be younger than I initially thought. I probably should have picked it up at the RTS/expert remark.

I am done.

[QUOTE="sethman410"]

I had the very same reaction :PSilentFireX

I actually dream of being an WW2 historian one day. I teach my mom many things about it. Im pretty much an expert.

There is far more to World War II and history in general than could ever be learned by watching History Channel documentaries, numerous fictional WWII movies, and an HBO fictional series based on true events.

The History Channel very commonly makes errors in things and tends to oversimplify a great deal of information, and when watching it, it's important to attempt to back up their claims with outside research.

[QUOTE="LightR"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The good news if we reduce our military spending Canada and the UK would have to increase.:oLJS9502_basic

Nah - I don't think it would make the slightest bit of difference, especially considering the strong guy isn't always around anyway (hello Falkland Islands). Domestic duties will take precedence on both sides of the pond.

[QUOTE="sethman410"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Playing video games and watching the History Channel doesn't make one an expert. Hell, neither does reading a few dozen books on WWII. Everyone has done that. How many degrees have you earned relating to your alleged field of expertise? How many years have you spent researching source material, writing systematic analyses and documenting historical events? How many years have you worked in the field you claim to be established in?

My money is on 'none' to all of the aforementioned questions.

Never claimed to know anything about WWII--but some of the remarks you have made are beyond silly.

I am an expert in economics because I've read about it. I'm investing every penny I have on gold as we speak because the Federal Reserve is destroying the U.S. currency.

coolbeans90

EDIT: oh for chrisssakes, not many people would read that many ww2 books as much as i do. i think you make such post because your jealous! lol.

You seem to be younger than I initially. I probably should have picked it up at the RTS/expert remark.

Yeah thats what I thought. I have more knowledge than you do about WW2.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="LightR"] How so... (My question mark is making É! :()

poptart

Nah - I don't think it would make the slightest bit of difference, especially considering the strong guy isn't always around anyway (hello Falkland Islands). Domestic duties will take precedence on both sides of the pond.

I played all Nba 2k games and read many basketball books,Im an expert ask about me Bucked20

[QUOTE="poptart"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] If you're friends with the strong guy....then you don't have to bulk up yourself.LJS9502_basic

Nah - I don't think it would make the slightest bit of difference, especially considering the strong guy isn't always around anyway (hello Falkland Islands). Domestic duties will take precedence on both sides of the pond.

...well the only time we'll ever see a fight is in the overactive imaginations of OT :P

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="poptart"]

Nah - I don't think it would make the slightest bit of difference, especially considering the strong guy isn't always around anyway (hello Falkland Islands). Domestic duties will take precedence on both sides of the pond.

poptart

...well the only time we'll ever see a fight is in the overactive imaginations of OT :P

[QUOTE="Bucked20"]I played all Nba 2k games and read many basketball books,Im an expert ask about me sethman410

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="Bucked20"]I played all Nba 2k games and read many basketball books,Im an expert ask about me SilentFireX

I mean seriously, many people are underestimating the books and the U.S. military strength. Like just wow. Especially books...

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Huh? I never brought up anything about the RTS to begin with. I just responded to the person who did.

Yeah thats what I thought. I have more knowledge than you do about WW2.

sethman410

No, you initiated that line of discussion.

You seem to not be able to grasp the nuances of various issues such as supplies and why a multi-front war requires more of them. You have also stated that the primary reason that Germany lost the war was due to the American Air Force. If you do have more knowledge about WWII in the factoid sense of the word, you still seem to be incapable of drawing reasonable conclusions from those many pieces of information on a macroscopic level--essentially realizing the larger picture. Do not claim to be an expert unless you are one.

Good evening, sir.

[QUOTE="SilentFireX"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"] Lol. Dont underestimate books. You buy books when taking college courses do you? Yes, because books are that powerful. They teach you many more things than from a teacher in a course. It can make you an expert. You folks need to learn this.sethman410

[QUOTE="Bucked20"]I played all Nba 2k games and read many basketball books,Im an expert ask about me sethman410

Books are more powerful than teachers? How would I learn this? Is there a book on it?

[QUOTE="sethman410"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Huh? I never brought up anything about the RTS to begin with. I just responded to the person who did.

Yeah thats what I thought. I have more knowledge than you do about WW2.

No, you initiated that line of discussion.

You seem to not be able to grasp the nuances of various issues such as supplies and why a multi-front war requires more of them. You have also stated that the primary reason that Germany lost the war was due to the American Air Force. If you do have more knowledge about WWII in the factoid sense of the word, you still seem to be incapable of drawing reasonable conclusions from those many pieces of information on a macroscopic level--essentially realizing the larger picture. Do not claim to be an expert unless you are one.

Good evening, sir.

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="Bucked20"]I played all Nba 2k games and read many basketball books,Im an expert ask about me poptart

Books are more powerful than teachers? How would I learn this? Is there a book on it?

[QUOTE="Bucked20"]I played all Nba 2k games and read many basketball books,Im an expert ask about me sethman410

Well. You aren't an expert are you neither? What is the point of that whole comment as a whole? Are you saying you're an ww2 expert? If not, then just dont respond.. Because clearly I do know and understand this more than yoou do. Yes, the Germany industries being destroyed was the biggest reason why they lost. I see this everywehre in the books. It forced the Germans to fall back on both sides big time. sethman410

You have completely ignored a more fundamental reason why Germany lost WWII. You are pointing out the end game, not a single critical strategic error made by a single man during 1941.

[QUOTE="poptart"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"] Lol. Dont underestimate books. You buy books when taking college courses do you? Yes, because books are that powerful. They teach you many more things than from a teacher in a course. It can make you an expert. You folks need to learn this.sethman410

Books are more powerful than teachers? How would I learn this? Is there a book on it?

I didn't realise academic text was measured using imperial units. Did you read that in a book?

...I kid. But no I don't read an awful lot. I'm not sure what the purpose of your post is though to be honest. 'Books' is a pretty vague term - some are good; some not so. Your suggestion neccessitates absorbing and understanding all information present in one of these powerful books you speak of - a lecturer is there is eleborate and aid; perhaps give a different perspective on the one that happens to be presented.

[QUOTE="sethman410"]

Well. You aren't an expert are you neither? What is the point of that whole comment as a whole? Are you saying you're an ww2 expert? If not, then just dont respond.. Because clearly I do know and understand this more than yoou do. Yes, the Germany industries being destroyed was the biggest reason why they lost. I see this everywehre in the books. It forced the Germans to fall back on both sides big time. coolbeans90

You have completely ignored a more fundamental reason why Germany lost WWII. You are pointing out the end game, not a single critical strategic error made by a single man during 1941.

But imo, their induestries being destroyed was the biggest reason. Because after some got destroyed, supplies became a huge problem and decreased German morale. Also, more reasons: German morale in the east were very low. Getting supplies to the east was a daunting task, its a long way to go from Germany, especially fighting in the winter. So, Russia having a winter advantage was also another huge reason. Another reason that the Russians having winter advantage was because their tanks were much more suitable in the winter. The German oil in tanks freeze thus making them useless, well the Russians can use their tanks without problems.

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="poptart"]

Books are more powerful than teachers? How would I learn this? Is there a book on it?

I didn't realise academic text was measured using imperial units. Did you read that in a book?

...I kid. But no I don't read an awful lot. I'm not sure what the purpose of your post is though to be honest. 'Books' is a pretty vague term - some are good; some not so. Your suggestion neccessitates absorbing and understanding all information present in one of these powerful books you speak of - a lecturer is there is eleborate and aid; perhaps give a different perspective on the one that happens to be presented.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"]

Well. You aren't an expert are you neither? What is the point of that whole comment as a whole? Are you saying you're an ww2 expert? If not, then just dont respond.. Because clearly I do know and understand this more than yoou do. Yes, the Germany industries being destroyed was the biggest reason why they lost. I see this everywehre in the books. It forced the Germans to fall back on both sides big time. sethman410

You have completely ignored a more fundamental reason why Germany lost WWII. You are pointing out the end game, not a single critical strategic error made by a single man during 1941.

Some of those are intertwined to the point of bordering on redundancy. For instance, fighting on numerous fronts and wide fronts while in the Soviet Union could both be traced back to the single issue of deciding to visit Russia. Moreover, the American Air Force wouldn't have mattered as much could Germany have focused their resources away from the Eastern front--quite possibly substantially mitigating damage done to their industries.

Rocket research, more than likely, didn't make a difference who won the war.

So, essentially, all of those points boil down to one key decision.

[QUOTE="poptart"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"] Nope. But it proves it by having every single inch of info about a topic and such. Have you seen a teacher explain every single inch of info? I didnt think so. I think you don't read that much do ya?sethman410

I didn't realise academic text was measured using imperial units. Did you read that in a book?

...I kid. But no I don't read an awful lot. I'm not sure what the purpose of your post is though to be honest. 'Books' is a pretty vague term - some are good; some not so. Your suggestion neccessitates absorbing and understanding all information present in one of these powerful books you speak of - a lecturer is there is eleborate and aid; perhaps give a different perspective on the one that happens to be presented.

History books I find merely give a perspective of the historian writing the text - in many ways it's theorising and supported by whatever information is available (or happens to fit any given theory of events). Historians hence don't always agree. But regardless, reading I find is useful to a point, but expertise is attained through discourse with those even better read than yourself.

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

You have completely ignored a more fundamental reason why Germany lost WWII. You are pointing out the end game, not a single critical strategic error made by a single man during 1941.

coolbeans90

Some of those are intertwined to the point of bordering on redundancy. For instance, fighting on numerous fronts and wide fronts while in the Soviet Union could both be traced back to the single issue of deciding to visit Russia. Moreover, the American Air Force wouldn't have mattered as much could Germany have focused their resources away from the Eastern front--quite possibly mitigating damage done to their industries.

Rocket research, more than likely, didn't make a difference who won the war. Industries being destroyed are end results of other errors.

So, essentially, all of those points boil down to one key decision.

EDIT: Honestly, you seem lost or stunned. Just give up, I proved that I have much more knowledge about it then you do. Otherwise, why dont you share a story that most people might not know about? I think you're just saying it all comes down to a key decision that is made by Hitler Which I already said. You pretty much aren't countering anything in my post. Looks like your just asking for more info. Jeez.

The US gov has the money to maybe take two countries? Then they run out of everything.
Try lasting with those super inefficient tanks and whatnot on USA oil >_>
Besides there are countries who have superior technology on several fronts. I don't know how you'd think to cross the ocean :P

And the USA atom bombs stored in my country? :P
If I know anything about my country, they'd be flying off somewhere but we never even knew about them.

It's just not doable. Especially without the economy to support it.
And without the foreigners to support it.



But look at it this way if you like to think of the USA as powerful. They already are. Netherlands, Uk? Or even the EU? They all listen to USA and happily change rules for you.
You don't have to kill everyone and conquer the world as you already have it by sheer negligence of todays leaders, and the corruption all over the world.
I just wonder what you'd want to do with the world. Make the rich richer? That is already happening.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"] Err I do know many of the fundamental reasons. They didnt take air force too seriously enough. They researched too much on rockets. Mechanical failures on their tanks. Fighting on three fronts. Industries being destroyed. Hitler being arrogant. Fighting against Russia in a large scale too wide, splitting 3 main armies, 1 in the north, 1 in the middle, and 1 in the south. Do you need more reasons?sethman410

Some of those are intertwined to the point of bordering on redundancy. For instance, fighting on numerous fronts and wide fronts while in the Soviet Union could both be traced back to the single issue of deciding to visit Russia. Moreover, the American Air Force wouldn't have mattered as much could Germany have focused their resources away from the Eastern front--quite possibly mitigating damage done to their industries.

Rocket research, more than likely, didn't make a difference who won the war. Industries being destroyed are end results of other errors.

So, essentially, all of those points boil down to one key decision.

All of those reasons are only relevant insofar as that one reason is relevant--it was the defining factor in the fall of Nazi Germany. The amount of resources dedicated to rocket research more than likely would not have made a difference. But as you mention, like the decision to attack the Soviet Union, it largely fell on Hitler if memory serves me correctly. Which leads me to this point: Hitler's leadership failures damned Germany in WWII. If it were not for that, the industries would not have been destroyed or even mattered as much. What happened did indeed happen, but there were a few things that set everything else in motion. Industries were just a part of a larger story.

EDIT: You do not seem to understand that which you claim to know.

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="poptart"]

I didn't realise academic text was measured using imperial units. Did you read that in a book?

...I kid. But no I don't read an awful lot. I'm not sure what the purpose of your post is though to be honest. 'Books' is a pretty vague term - some are good; some not so. Your suggestion neccessitates absorbing and understanding all information present in one of these powerful books you speak of - a lecturer is there is eleborate and aid; perhaps give a different perspective on the one that happens to be presented.

History books I find merely give a perspective of the historian writing the text - in many ways it's theorising and supported by whatever information is available (or happens to fit any given theory of events). Historians hence don't always agree. But regardless, reading I find is useful to a point, but expertise is attained through discourse with those even better read than yourself.

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

I give up. It's impossible to debate someone who pulls arguments from nowhere and literally makes up strategy as he goes along, and I have much better things to do than smash my head on that particular wall. :roll:

sethman410

By "little RTS ever," I take that to mean you barely play any strategic games... and boy, it shows. Big time.

Since you seem to be the only person who still believes the US can take over the world... and since you don't seem to have won anyone over to your way of thinking (actually, I see the opposite happening)... I'd count it as a Pyrrhic victory at best. :|

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Some of those are intertwined to the point of bordering on redundancy. For instance, fighting on numerous fronts and wide fronts while in the Soviet Union could both be traced back to the single issue of deciding to visit Russia. Moreover, the American Air Force wouldn't have mattered as much could Germany have focused their resources away from the Eastern front--quite possibly mitigating damage done to their industries.

Rocket research, more than likely, didn't make a difference who won the war. Industries being destroyed are end results of other errors.

So, essentially, all of those points boil down to one key decision.

All of those reasons are only relevant insofar as that one reason is relevant--it was the defining factor in the fall of Nazi Germany. The amount of resources dedicated to rocket research more than likely would not have made a difference. But as you mention, like the decision to attack the Soviet Union, it largely fell on Hitler if memory serves me correctly. Which leads me to this point: Hitler's leadership failures damned Germany in WWII. If it were not for that, the industries would not have been destroyed or even mattered as much. What happened did indeed happen, but there were a few things that set everything else in motion. Industries were just a part of a larger story.

EDIT: You do not seem to understand that which you claim to know.

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

I give up. It's impossible to debate someone who pulls arguments from nowhere and literally makes up strategy as he goes along, and I have much better things to do than smash my head on that particular wall. :roll:

OrkHammer007

By "little RTS ever," I take that to mean you barely play any strategic games... and boy, it shows. Big time.

Since you seem to be the only person who still believes the US can take over the world... and since you don't seem to have won anyone over to your way of thinking (actually, I see the opposite happening)... I'd count it as a Pyrrhic victory at best. :|

EDIT: Umm WW2 is modern actually. Today's militaries aren't that much diffferent than WW2. So, your point? Like medieval times 100 years apart but similar strategies.

Oh yeah! They got..... that Spider Man'n'lasers and sh1t

l-lord

Honestly, dont post if you didn't read my other posts.sethman410

[QUOTE="sethman410"]Honestly, dont post if you didn't read my other posts.OrkHammer007

EDIT: OH, just because i have poor english skills means im wrong. *sigh*

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"]Reading about WW II doesn't prepare you for debating about modern strategy.

By "little RTS ever," I take that to mean you barely play any strategic games... and boy, it shows. Big time.

Since you seem to be the only person who still believes the US can take over the world... and since you don't seem to have won anyone over to your way of thinking (actually, I see the opposite happening)... I'd count it as a Pyrrhic victory at best. :|

sethman410

Just a thought, however in a previous thread asking which nation would make a worthy enemy of the US, you said:

China or Russia. France, Germany, or Uk just can't... unless all of Europe unite. sethman410

Now, assuming you've cited 3 there - China, Russia and Europe - you're now of the view that all 3 combined do not make a worthy adversary? And combined with every other nation on earth still they fall short?

[QUOTE="sethman410"]

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"] Honestly, dont post if you didn't read my other posts. I think its because I have more knowledge about these stuff than most people on these forums which on U.S. military strengths. In fact, im not alone. RTS has nothing to do with these arguments. FFS.

Just a thought, however in a previous thread asking which nation would make a worthy enemy of the US, you said:

China or Russia. France, Germany, or Uk just can't... unless all of Europe unite. sethman410

Now, assuming you've cited 3 there - China, Russia and Europe - you're now of the view that all 3 combined do not make a worthy adversary? And combined with every other nation on earth still they fall short?

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"] ...I gave more reason above. Dude, it dont matter on the key decisions lol. What happend, happend. And yes, researching into the rockets was a huge factor, because instead they should be researching something more useful such as air force. Hitler decided that, yes. I know I already said that. But they researched into many useless bs that wasn't Hitler's decision. Such as time machine or whatever it was (that's related to alien). So... yeah. Biggest reasons are HItler and industries being destroyed. Which i already said numerous times. I dont understand what you want.sethman410

All of those reasons are only relevant insofar as that one reason is relevant--it was the defining factor in the fall of Nazi Germany. The amount of resources dedicated to rocket research more than likely would not have made a difference. But as you mention, like the decision to attack the Soviet Union, it largely fell on Hitler if memory serves me correctly. Which leads me to this point: Hitler's leadership failures damned Germany in WWII. If it were not for that, the industries would not have been destroyed or even mattered as much. What happened did indeed happen, but there were a few things that set everything else in motion. Industries were just a part of a larger story.

EDIT: You do not seem to understand that which you claim to know.

I explained in the post prior to the one you here just questioned how all of the reasons you listed for the fall of Germany (with the exception of rockets) all hinged upon the decision to attack the Soviet Union, ergo why it was a fundamental reason for the loss of the war. I know that you have said that the leadership of Hitler was an issue, but you don't seem 'get' the fact that it caused all of the other issues, including the destruction of industry--which would not have been destroyed in the absence of attacking the soviet union. Resources directed to the rocket program didn't necessarily make a substantial enough difference in between the two air forces. The Germans had adequate aircraft, qualitatively speaking--typically they suffered a quantity shortage, not a quantity shortage in many things throughout the war. They just didn't devote the industrial capital towards maintaining a large enough air force. If you have evidence to the contrary, (and by that, I mean evidence that resources were directed away from aircraft production and repurposed to produce rockets, and that it was sufficient to cause a difference in the outcome of the war) buy all means, cite it. But I haven't once seen it cited as a the reason why Germany lost. Luftwaffe took quite a hit while playing games with England (see Battle of Britain) prior to rocket development, however.

[QUOTE="l-lord"]

Oh yeah! They got..... that Spider Man'n'lasers and sh1t

sethman410

Not deployed in weaponry, no they do not.

We are at least a decade away from laser-based anti-ballistic missile systems actually being used by the military.

[QUOTE="poptart"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"]

Just a thought, however in a previous thread asking which nation would make a worthy enemy of the US, you said:

[QUOTE="sethman410"]China or Russia. France, Germany, or Uk just can't... unless all of Europe unite. sethman410

Now, assuming you've cited 3 there - China, Russia and Europe - you're now of the view that all 3 combined do not make a worthy adversary? And combined with every other nation on earth still they fall short?

Would you concede that although possible, is highly unlikely, considering that the above statement would suggest that those 3 combined alone would make for a greater force than that of the US?

It is late; I am going to sleep.

Goodnight, everyone.

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

All of those reasons are only relevant insofar as that one reason is relevant--it was the defining factor in the fall of Nazi Germany. The amount of resources dedicated to rocket research more than likely would not have made a difference. But as you mention, like the decision to attack the Soviet Union, it largely fell on Hitler if memory serves me correctly. Which leads me to this point: Hitler's leadership failures damned Germany in WWII. If it were not for that, the industries would not have been destroyed or even mattered as much. What happened did indeed happen, but there were a few things that set everything else in motion. Industries were just a part of a larger story.

EDIT: You do not seem to understand that which you claim to know.

I explained in the post prior to the one you here just questioned how all of the reasons you listed for the fall of Germany (with the exception of rockets) all hinged upon the decision to attack the Soviet Union, ergo why it was a fundamental reason for the loss of the war. I know that you have said that the leadership of Hitler was an issue, but you don't seem 'get' the fact that it caused all of the other issues, including the destruction of industry--which would not have been destroyed in the absence of attacking the soviet union. The development of rockets didn't necessarily make the single difference in the war. Resources directed to the rocket program didn't necessarily make a substantial enough difference in between the two air forces. The Germans had adequate aircraft, qualitatively speaking--typically they suffered a quantity shortage, not a quantity shortage. They just didn't devote the industrial capital towards maintaining a large enough air force. If you have evidence to the contrary, (and by that, I mean evidence that resources were directed away from aircraft production and repurposed to produce rockets, and that it was sufficient to cause a difference in the outcome of the war) buy all means, cite it. But I haven't once seen it cited as a the reason why Germany lost. Luftwaffe took quite a hit while playing games with England (see Battle of Britain) prior to rocket development, however.