Answers to Questions by Yair Davidiy
In WW2, could von Manstein have defeated Montgomery if they'd had equal supplies and troops?
Who was von Manstein?
A German general.
Who was Montgomery?
A British general.
Are we talking about war or a schoolboys competition?
In a fight to the death you should use what you have. Each side applies its own relative advantage.
War incudes providing supplies and troops.
"An army marches on its stomach." Napoleon.
The Germans conquered most of Continental Europe. They had an economical and quasi-military understanding with Russia.
Then they attacked Russia and at first the Russian and Ukrainian peoples welcomed them.
Not only Hitler but von Manstein and all the other Wehrmacht people antagonized the locals instead of using them.
They killed the Jews because they were mean Jew-killers.
And they lost the war because they preferred to kill innocent civilians than to win it.
They failed to properly exploit the resources under their thumbs.
They blew it.
Since they had nice shiny guns that worked better at first than those of the others and they could shoot in unison they made some initial progress.
But in matters that count, e.g. supplies and troops, they did not make the grade.
They lost.
They were loosers.
The British at the beginning had less.
The British used what they had and they consistently strove to get more of it.
And they did so.
And guess what?
They came up with more supplies and troops.
They won.
Montgomery won.
Montgomery was a winner.
