>>21670
>>21670
>Germany's production grew continuously until the factories were captured
where can I check third reich's industrial capacity after failure in britain?

I also said on long run, not literally just before barbarossa started.

>But that came later in the war.
True but let's be honest here, allies can't make naval invasion and soviet counterattack is sucessful even though they get more loses than they supposed to be due to lack of allies divertion.

How would the allies react? Do you think they would just let soviets swallow entire continental europe? This is the part it gets interesting as allies not being able to launch naval invasion and soviets possibly winning and rushing towards berlin would give axis some interesting but also kinda unpredictable diplomatic options. I can't tell you or anyone enough how much air superiority mattered.

>Woudln't matter the new officers risen to their ranks just would have to learn their trade during real action which they did anyway, only during on the defence
And it costed them high amount of manpower. I'm just trying to say it's not a good way to prepeare an invasion, of course they could just ignore it due to their overconfidence about manpower and stuff.

>I think generally we really underestimate both Hitler and Stalin
atleast on chins, gitler is not underestimated, in fact overestimated in military sense. he was an uneducated corporal, the only one of the good things he done for the army is mechanising it but even that does not come from geniusness or any kind of tactician skill. He really liked the idea due to his experiences from ww1 where trench warfare often lead to stalemate and hitler really hated that, rightfully so. But it was an emotional decision, just like his lust for "wünderwaffe"