# For what reasons did the Old South and Nazi Germany think they could win the war?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-what-reasons-did-the-old-south-and-nazi-germany-think-they-could-win-the-war/833871
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [May 12, 2019, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-what-reasons-did-the-old-south-and-nazi-germany-think-they-could-win-the-war/833871 "2019-05-12T22:46:51Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 3
### Author:  [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)
#### Post date: [May 13, 2019, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-what-reasons-did-the-old-south-and-nazi-germany-think-they-could-win-the-war/833871/41 "2019-05-13T17:31:26Z")
I don’t think \*every \*German higher-up was incapable of doubt, I think many had their reservations in private - but the system ensured that those who did voice doubt, any doubt, for any reason were quickly removed and replaced by yes-men and fanatics. Furthermore, the Nazi regime was super corrupt and running a lot on nepotism, so that there was a constant incentive for one-upmanship and taking things to further and further extremes in order to be granted more than the next guy - more promotions, more attention from the brass, more resources to do what you really wanted to do, or just being left alone to do your job without constant hassle (or bothersome micro-managing by the Führer who was convinced he knew everything better than everybody). And being (ostensibly) extra super certain of things was one way to rise up.
So people did that, and denounced anyone who wasn’t extra super certain to try and bring \*them \*down. And it extended all the way down to everyday, random people who’d rat out any perceived deviance of their neighbours and acquaintances before they would be denounced themselves. As a quote in a recent nazi-shooting videogame I’m playing goes (by somebody living in Nazi-occupied Poland), “Everyone is a Nazi now, or pretending to be a Nazi and I can’t tell the difference any more”.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [May 13, 2019, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-what-reasons-did-the-old-south-and-nazi-germany-think-they-could-win-the-war/833871/42 "2019-05-13T17:55:42Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#):
>
> Right. What the Confederacy was created to protect required that there be a functioning state protecting it under law. If not fought conventionally they would have risked that by the time their independence was recognized, there would be nothing left of what they fought for.
>
> And yes, there was (and is) a lot of cultural attitude that they were martially superior and more honor-bound than the Yankees. Martial spirit and “honor” ain’t much against superior industrial output, though.
Which make me wonder how much they took industrial capability into account. The Civil War was the first really big war since the Napoleonic Wars (not counting Crimea which was localized.) The railroad hadn’t even been invented then. Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton, not the factories of Manchester after all.
---
### Author:  [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)
#### Post date: [May 13, 2019, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-what-reasons-did-the-old-south-and-nazi-germany-think-they-could-win-the-war/833871/43 "2019-05-13T19:48:43Z")
I dont think the Union would have won if it wasnt for the railroads. Railroads were still a kind of new thing and few understood their potential for moving massive amounts of troops and supplies.
Thing is the south was BIG. It was very hard to move massive armies anywhere and keep them supplied. Railroads allowed this.
And then the blockade. At the beginning the union navy was pretty small and the south never thought they would have the ability to blockade the entire southern coast and that they would always be able to import things they needed.
---
### Author:  [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)
#### Post date: [May 14, 2019, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-what-reasons-did-the-old-south-and-nazi-germany-think-they-could-win-the-war/833871/44 "2019-05-14T02:58:08Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#):
>
> And yes, there was (and is) a lot of cultural attitude that they were martially superior and more honor-bound than the Yankees. Martial spirit and “honor” ain’t much against superior industrial output, though.
And the “honor” of the South was shown to be a flimsy thing when the South lauded the cowardly attack by Preston Brooks on Senator Sumner
To review: Brooks was offended by Sumner’s comments on slavery, but rather than challenging Sumner to a duel or spontaneously attacking out of immediate rage, Brooks waited until
a) Sumner was alone and unsuspecting, sitting behind a desk that was nailed to the floor (thus impeding escape or defense)
b) Brooks was armed with a cane
c) Brooks had two allies with him hold off anyone who might intervene.
Sumner was beaten so badly that he could not return to the Senate for several years. Brooks declined a challenge to a duel from a Northerner who would actually be armed.
Rather than disgusted by Brooks, the South universally praised him as a hero, gave him gifts and returned him to office by special election and Southern senators wore pieces of the cane Brooks used for the beating as jewelry.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [May 14, 2019, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-what-reasons-did-the-old-south-and-nazi-germany-think-they-could-win-the-war/833871/45 "2019-05-14T04:34:27Z")
> [@RickJay](#):
>
> A war offered the chance to avoid that, and anyone who says Southern defeat was inevitable is fooling themselves. It absolutely was not inevitable, and the matter was still up in the air in the first half of 1863. Remember, they were less than a century removed from the War of Independence, when a fledgling government defeated the greatest military power on earth.
:dubious:
Well, not your whole post, most of it was good, but I have a nit about that part.
That is because I do remember that that fledgling government was lucky to seek independence after powerful nations were involved on what some historians call [a World War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years%27_War). France was seeking revenge for what had taken place on the Seven Years’ War, and it did cost them.
> **[France in the American Revolutionary War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War)**
>
> French involvement in the American Revolutionary War of 1775–1783 began in 1776 when the Kingdom of France secretly shipped supplies to the Continental Army of the Thirteen Colonies when it was established in June 1775. France was a long-term historical rival with the Kingdom of Great Britain, from which the Colonies were attempting to separate.
> A Treaty of Alliance between the French and the Continental Army followed in 1778, which led to French money, matériel and troops being sent to the Un...
> [@](#):
>
> The Revolution was perceived as the incarnation of the Enlightenment Spirit against the “English tyranny.” Benjamin Franklin traveled to France in December 1776 in order to rally the nation’s support, and he was welcomed with great enthusiasm. At first, French support was covert: French agents sent the Patriots military aid (predominantly gunpowder) through a company called Rodrigue Hortalez et Compagnie, beginning in the spring of 1776. Estimates place the percentage of French supplied arms to the Americans in the Saratoga campaign at up to 90%.[3] By 1777, over five million livres of aid had been sent to the American rebels.
There is that, and related to the Civil War, the Confederacy never had those levels of support from other world powers. Far from it, France did not recognize the Confederacy and remained neutral; Britain officially did the same, but in practice, the Union was the one that got most of the trade then.
> **[Foreign Countries Respond To The American Civil War](https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/the-american-civil-war-the-union-told-all-the-european-countries-if-they-recognized-the-confederacys-legitimacy-it-was-equal-to-declaring-war-against-the-union.html)**
>
> Both the Union and the Confederacy wanted to gain foreign powers, so that they could take advantage of both military help and financial assistance.
> [@](#):
>
> Great Britain remained neutral and was able to work out a deal for continuous trade with both sides. However, trade with the Confederacy fell by 90 percent after the beginning of the war. Only a little cotton was able to get to England, and a few munitions made it to Confederacy ports.
While not quite inevitable, defeat was coming when resources do not appear. And like southern historian Shelby Foote said on the classic PBS documentary _The Civil War_:
[ ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8Iw-j217yk)
> [@](#):
>
> "I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back. At the same time the war was going on, the Homestead act was being passed, all these marvelous inventions were going on.
>
> In the spring of 64 the Harvard-Yale boat races were going on and not a man on either crew ever volunteered for the army or the Navy, they didn’t need them.
>
> I think if there had been more Southern successes, and a lot more, the North simply would have brought that other arm out from behind its back. I don’t think the South ever had a chance to win that War. "
---
### Author:  [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)
#### Post date: [May 14, 2019, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-what-reasons-did-the-old-south-and-nazi-germany-think-they-could-win-the-war/833871/46 "2019-05-14T11:27:02Z")
> [@Kobal2](#):
>
> I don’t think \*every \*German higher-up was incapable of doubt, I think many had their reservations in private - but the system ensured that those who did voice doubt, any doubt, for any reason were quickly removed and replaced by yes-men and fanatics. Furthermore, the Nazi regime was super corrupt and running a lot on nepotism, so that there was a constant incentive for one-upmanship and taking things to further and further extremes in order to be granted more than the next guy - more promotions, more attention from the brass, more resources to do what you really wanted to do, or just being left alone to do your job without constant hassle (or bothersome micro-managing by the Führer who was convinced he knew everything better than everybody). And being (ostensibly) extra super certain of things was one way to rise up.
>
> So people did that, and denounced anyone who wasn’t extra super certain to try and bring \*them \*down. And it extended all the way down to everyday, random people who’d rat out any perceived deviance of their neighbours and acquaintances before they would be denounced themselves. As a quote in a recent nazi-shooting videogame I’m playing goes (by somebody living in Nazi-occupied Poland), “Everyone is a Nazi now, or pretending to be a Nazi and I can’t tell the difference any more”.
Also many higher ups like Rommel wanted to sign a seperate peace agreement with the western allies and concentrate on Russia. They had sent a deal that if they would remove Hitler they would agree to many concessions such as pulling out of occupied nations. The allies wouldnt agree though so the planned coup failed.
---
### Author:  [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)
#### Post date: [May 14, 2019, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-what-reasons-did-the-old-south-and-nazi-germany-think-they-could-win-the-war/833871/47 "2019-05-14T11:35:09Z")
My understanding of contemporary Civil War accounts is that Southern men were under the misimpression that they were especially tough fighters, that the North couldn’t raise the resources that they did, that they wouldn’t bring them South, and that other cotton-dependent countries would be on their knees begging to ally with the South. Basically what you’d expect from a bunch of hillbillies with delusions of grandeur.
My understanding of Nazi Germany is that if they had delayed invading the USSR, then they could have conquered Europe and “won the war” that way. They could have consolidated, regrouped, developed atom bombs, and possibly defeated the USSR as well. The Nazis had a very viable war machine, just bad leaders and rotten moral goals that kneecapped the military effort.
---
### Author:  [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)
#### Post date: [May 14, 2019, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-what-reasons-did-the-old-south-and-nazi-germany-think-they-could-win-the-war/833871/48 "2019-05-14T11:54:08Z")
> [@DinoR](#):
>
> Their offensive into Russia culminated a little short of Moscow. Seizing Moscow would have at least shifted the strategic balance of power. Russia’s ability to resist when important supply and communications lines that ran through Moscow would have been reduced. Russia’s only T-34 plant was still in the area during the Battle of Moscow.
Do you think they would have been more likely than not to knock out the USSR if they’d started the operation some months earlier? Or in early spring of 1942? They went for Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad. I remember John Boyd talking about how strategic breakthroughs are best done in 1 thrust instead of pincer/tentacle movements. Which major strategic objective do you think they should have focused on at first, Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad or something else?
> [@Kobal2](#):
>
> It’s true of every fascist group, but probably even more marked in those two cases because so much of their ideologies were racist/based on pop-genetics on top of being fascist. And that’s absolutely dysfunctional and schyzo at its very core because on the one hand, you can’t be a fascist (or really an extremist of any persuasion) without an enemy to rail against. In the case of the Reich, it was communists and Jews (mostly) which were, in their opinion, such a dire and existential threat to Germany that they had to be destroyed ASAP. Every extremist policy, every “national purge”, every robbing of liberty, every new law, every oversight on violence by the Nazis was invented and presented as the only possible effective answer to the twin headed, all-powerful, all-controlling hydra of Judeo-bolshevism which the Nazis were the one and only rampart against.
Since France has had its Trump/Brexit for a generation, who are those enemies to FN types?
---
### Author:  [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)
#### Post date: [May 14, 2019, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-what-reasons-did-the-old-south-and-nazi-germany-think-they-could-win-the-war/833871/49 "2019-05-14T13:56:23Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#):
>
> Since France has had its Trump/Brexit for a generation, who are those enemies to FN types?
Algerians (and Jews too, albeit to a lesser extent I think ? LePen father was callously dismissive of the Holocaust and never shied from antisemitic jokes, but he didn’t really go further than that AFAIR. LePen daughter has tried to steer away from that and the honest to god skinheads her father employed as security personnel). The FN was founded as a revanchist move over the Algerian war, and LePen father himself was a veteran of that war. Its modern incarnation has moved on to “Muslims in general” in the post 9/11 and Syrian refugees zeitgeist.
Blacks are also a bugaboo, naturally, but less so I think. There is/was something more virulent, more malicious, more visceral about French anti-Arab racism than its anti-Black racism in my experience (although that isn’t at all to say that Blacks have it easy around here…). I would have intuitively said it was because of the Algerian war, which was so horrible and cruel and plainly wrong that it is simply not talked about anymore ; but then again when I think about it some more VietNam/Indochina was pretty bloody as well and there isn’t much anti-Vietnamese racism. So I 'unno.
But TL;DR, the modern FN goes hogwild on the Great Replacement. Think of every horrible shit racist Americans have said about Mexicans/Latinos ; and assume the FN is more or less a copy/paste (with the exact same contradictions as well - like the omnipresent doublethink that them brownies are lazy and shiftless to a man but also they take all the jobs and work longer hours for less pay)
---
### Author:  [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)
#### Post date: [May 14, 2019, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-what-reasons-did-the-old-south-and-nazi-germany-think-they-could-win-the-war/833871/50 "2019-05-14T14:43:56Z")
In the 1860s was the idea that wars were (or even could be ) won by the side with the most resources, not the side with the bravest, best drilled, troops and best generals, even be a thing?
We’ve have century or two of industrial warfare to the get used to the idea. But IMO I think may anachronistic to assume people in that era thought that way.
---
### Author:  [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)
#### Post date: [May 14, 2019, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-what-reasons-did-the-old-south-and-nazi-germany-think-they-could-win-the-war/833871/51 "2019-05-14T14:57:14Z")
Yeah, I’d say that’s got a certain amount of truth to it. From this angle, with our greater understanding of economics, we can evaluate the south’s effort as insane. At the time, though, they were following a pretty basic plan in attempting to break the north’s spirit. Lincoln and his team determined to break the south economically and degrade the CSAs very ability to fight.
In terms of railroads, as UrbanRedneck laid out above, I’d say it’s not railroads per se, it was the entire manufacturing base that allowed greater materiel to be produced that the rails were a sign. Hell, the south going to war with just one major iron works - [Tredegar Iron Works](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tredegar_Iron_Works) in Richmond - would now be seen as insane. TIW produced - just 90 miles from Maryland - half the confederate artillery and most of the rail stock. When such were destroyed in the war they had a hell of a time replacing them.
Look, it’s easy - and wrong - to treat economics as deterministic in anything because there are too many human factors at play. But production and economics do put a pretty significant thumb on the scale of most human endeavors.
> [@](#):
>
> “Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics.”
>
> - Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Commandant of the Marine Corps) noted in 1980
---
### Author:  [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)
#### Post date: [May 14, 2019, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-what-reasons-did-the-old-south-and-nazi-germany-think-they-could-win-the-war/833871/52 "2019-05-14T15:31:40Z")
> [@puddleglum](#):
>
> Both were prepared and ready to fight a different war than the ones they ended up fighting.
>
> Before the Civil War people believed in the big battle theory. At Waterloo Napoleon lost one battle and that caused France to lose the war. The planners of the day thought the Civil War was going to be like that. One huge battle and whoever wins that battle wins the war.
>
> In a case like that, the Union’s vast manpower and industrial advantages don’t matter. The south had the most professional soldiers and their people were mostly rural farmers who knew how to use guns. No one was prepared for the kind of carnage both sides were willing to put up with. The Mexican war had cost the defeated side 15,000 soldiers killed and they had surrendered.
>
> The Union suffered horrible defeats early in the war but never relented and the south was forced to fight a war of attrition which they could not hope to win.
>
> Likewise the Nazis thought that they were going to be fighting a war like they did against France. France had one of the best militaries in the world and some of the best weapons. However it did not matter because tactically the Germans were so superior. They were able to use combined arms and the element of surprise to defeat a large force with low casualties. Once the french army was defeated the government capitulated quickly.
>
> Against the USSR they were planning to do the same thing. They would attack with a surprise combined assault, capture or destroy the Soviet army and then the government would capitulate quickly. It worked very well at first and they captured or destroyed a larger amount of troops then they thought the russians had. However after handing the USSR some of the largest defeats in the history of warfare, the USSR kept fighting.
>
> Once the initial attack was blunted they ended up fighting a war of attrition versus a foe that had a huge manpower advantage and once the US got into the war an ally with a huge industrial advantage. This type of war they had no chance of winning.
This is the correct answer. Basically the Germans didn’t set out in 1939 saying “Yep, we’re going to take on the Poles, the Russians, the French, the British, AND the Americans, because X, Y and Z.”
It was very much more a “We’ll whip Poland in a month”, and then once the British and French were in the war, the thinking was “We’ll whip France quickly as well, and move on to Britain”. And then a year later, “So far, our ground forces haven’t failed to defeat our opponents in record time, so we’ll whip the Soviets by Xmas”
Then starting around December 1941, things got ugly for them- the Russians were NOT beaten by Xmas, and for some bizarre reason, pre-emptively declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor. At this point, they’d achieved domination of continental Europe, but still had the Free French and British warring against them, and managed to invade a huge and populous nation (Soviet Union), and antagonize the world’s pre-eminent industrial power (the US), who happened to be unusually close as nations go, with the British. They had the tiger by the tail at that point- there wasn’t any sueing for peace; the Soviets were going to grind them down, regardless of what the US/British did.
In the case of the Confederates, I think it was even more shambolic in terms of planning/strategy. Once the states had seceded and the Federal government had declared the secessions invalid, and that they were in a state of rebellion, war was pretty much the only choice. But it’s not like they got together in Richmond and said “IF we secede, how are we going to prosecute the inevitable war?” I think it was more of a thing that moved faster than anyone was really prepared for, considering the speed/state of communications in those days. I mean, Lincoln was elected in November 1860, and by the end of February, the Confederacy was born. The war started in April, and by the end of July, the first battle had been fought.
Combine that with military thinking that was very outdated- most senior officers still clung to the idea that the war was effectively going to be fought Napoleonic-style, and that big decisive battles were what was going to force the issue, not the long, grinding war of attrition that actually happened. We see this in the South especially- between their general unpreparedness to fight a modern war, and the sort of thinking that led to Pickett’s Charge.
My personal belief is that even had Lee won at Gettysburg, that would have only delayed things, but that’s not how they were thinking at the time- the thought that the Union could replace the soldiers and formations lost and keep on fighting and win through sheer mass was a concept that was really being developed at the time. Prior to that, armies were organizations that were formed up, and used fairly quickly, because they tend to disintegrate when in the field- disease, accidents, etc… all take their toll. So as a result, wars tended to be fought with what they had, and not in the context of ongoing production, recruiting, etc…
But in the Civil War, that changed. The US put a huge army in the field AND supported it for years far from home through the use of railways. That’s fundamentally different than what had been done until that time.
---
### Author:  [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)
#### Post date: [May 14, 2019, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-what-reasons-did-the-old-south-and-nazi-germany-think-they-could-win-the-war/833871/53 "2019-05-14T15:56:02Z")
How close to a total war was the Civil War? Large scale, sustained conscription was rather new, taking the example from the wars that followed the French revolution. Instead of geographic depth, it gave the North a “demographic depth” to keep going after losses because the North could recruit equip and train soldiers father than the South could take them out.
Since it came down to grinding down the opponent, what shortages most hampered the Old South or the Nazis?
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [May 14, 2019, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-what-reasons-did-the-old-south-and-nazi-germany-think-they-could-win-the-war/833871/54 "2019-05-14T17:41:14Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#):
>
> Also many higher ups like Rommel wanted to sign a seperate peace agreement with the western allies and concentrate on Russia. They had sent a deal that if they would remove Hitler they would agree to many concessions such as pulling out of occupied nations. The allies wouldnt agree though so the planned coup failed.
When did this happen?
---
### Author:  [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)
#### Post date: [May 14, 2019, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-what-reasons-did-the-old-south-and-nazi-germany-think-they-could-win-the-war/833871/55 "2019-05-14T18:06:00Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> When did this happen?
[Rudolph Hess, Hitler’s Deputy Fuhrer, flew to Scotland in May 1941 to try to negotiate a peace with Britain.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Hess#Attempted_peace_mission) That was a month BEFORE the Nazi’s broke their treaty and invaded the USSR.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [May 14, 2019, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-what-reasons-did-the-old-south-and-nazi-germany-think-they-could-win-the-war/833871/56 "2019-05-14T20:21:12Z")
> [@kunilou](#):
>
> [Rudolph Hess, Hitler’s Deputy Fuhrer, flew to Scotland in May 1941 to try to negotiate a peace with Britain.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Hess#Attempted_peace_mission) That was a month BEFORE the Nazi’s broke their treaty and invaded the USSR.
I’m not aware that Hess was the representative of any larger group of Germans. He claimed he was acting on Hitler’s behalf, not as part of a coup aimed at overthrowing Hitler. The likeliest reality is that Hess was representing nobody other than himself.
---
### Author:  [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)
#### Post date: [May 14, 2019, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-what-reasons-did-the-old-south-and-nazi-germany-think-they-could-win-the-war/833871/57 "2019-05-14T21:34:22Z")
> [@griffin1977](#):
>
> In the 1860s was the idea that wars were (or even could be ) won by the side with the most resources, not the side with the bravest, best drilled, troops and best generals, even be a thing?
>
> We’ve have century or two of industrial warfare to the get used to the idea. But IMO I think may anachronistic to assume people in that era thought that way.
This is true. I think it was Dan Carlin I heard talking about how even the armies of WWI were laughably out of date from the perspective of WWII armies just 20 years later, but it’s very likely a Roman Legion could take out a medieval army from a thousand years after its time, and Alexander’s army could probably have beaten Rome from hundreds of years later.
So, before the Civil War, it was possible to be “decades behind” an opponent, and still win. Not long after that, though, it was clear to everyone that you had to be up to date with the extreme bleeding edge of military technology and logistics to even stand a fighting chance.
---
### Author:  [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)
#### Post date: [May 14, 2019, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-what-reasons-did-the-old-south-and-nazi-germany-think-they-could-win-the-war/833871/58 "2019-05-14T21:36:39Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> I’m not aware that Hess was the representative of any larger group of Germans. He claimed he was acting on Hitler’s behalf, not as part of a coup aimed at overthrowing Hitler. The likeliest reality is that Hess was representing nobody other than himself.
I’m not aware that Rommel et al represented anyone other than themselves, either.
---
### Author:  [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)
#### Post date: [May 15, 2019, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-what-reasons-did-the-old-south-and-nazi-germany-think-they-could-win-the-war/833871/59 "2019-05-15T02:07:32Z")
> [@DrCube](#):
>
> This is true. I think it was Dan Carlin I heard talking about how even the armies of WWI were laughably out of date from the perspective of WWII armies just 20 years later, but it’s very likely a Roman Legion could take out a medieval army from a thousand years after its time, and Alexander’s army could probably have beaten Rome from hundreds of years later.
>
> So, before the Civil War, it was possible to be “decades behind” an opponent, and still win. Not long after that, though, it was clear to everyone that you had to be up to date with the extreme bleeding edge of military technology and logistics to even stand a fighting chance.
I think there’s a distinction between understanding the importance of weapons technology, which the opposing sides in the US civil war did (going back to the early days of artillery that was understood to some degree), and understanding that what ultimately won wars was having an industrialized country that could produce more troops, muskets, cannons, boots, rations, etc. than the opposition, which wasn’t AFAIK.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [May 15, 2019, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-what-reasons-did-the-old-south-and-nazi-germany-think-they-could-win-the-war/833871/60 "2019-05-15T04:30:26Z")
> [@kunilou](#):
>
> I’m not aware that Rommel et al represented anyone other than themselves, either.
What do you think? That Rommel called up a few thousand friends and said “Hey, guys, let’s invade North Africa this weekend!”
Rommel was an officer in the German army. He was given assignments and orders by his superiors in the German command structure. So it wasn’t Rommel who invaded North Africa; it was the German army (which was carrying out the directives of the German government) and Rommel just happened to be commanding the troops. Rommel was acting as a representative of Germany in that role.
Hess, on the other hand, did not represent anyone in a similar manner when he flew to England. Nobody had told him to go there.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-what-reasons-did-the-old-south-and-nazi-germany-think-they-could-win-the-war/833871.md?page=2)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-what-reasons-did-the-old-south-and-nazi-germany-think-they-could-win-the-war/833871.md?page=4)