1950 conquest

brings into much consideration what things would have changed if Poland and the Soviet Union joined the Axis powers in ww2, poland due to submission to power and the USSR due to desire for domination and expansion of their power. But ultimately the germans would eventually stab russia in the back, but at least the latter will have its red army focused on invading the middle east and china against the ROC and the British, and the Germans would have a faster time reaching Moscow. That isnt too ideal either, as a overwhelmingly strong southern push could occur, and imo if this rly happens its up to germany to take moscow asap so that they can stand a chance. This is all alternate history ideas which im interested in, so no offence to any country but i feel its very interesting to consider the many things that might have changed

Hitler was destined to lose. Pretty much the whole world was against him, and his ideals of lebensraum and the like made it impossible for any diplomatic exchange. If he was a realist and more of a rational, i can see Germany winning. But based on his psychology, it was only a matter of time for Germany to lose. Also, i'd say the leaders are more important, since tbh, the masses can be considered as one single consciousness, and group consciousness is easily swayed by a strong figure.

WW2 was for the most part  a war of ideologys Communism, Capitalism and Facism. Germany lost because Facism was by far the most extreme of the Three ideologys. The cold war was just the continuing of that war of ideologys.

true, for the sake of technicality Hitler relied on rhetoric and Pathos in order to better influence the masses no matter the existing odds. True, as he literally had to hard carry Italy, even the balkan states were arguably slightly better allies than the italians( with the exception of Bulgaria). Hitler really shot himself in the foot so many times, as one who opposes UK will eventually trigger the US to intervene(and they were already on high alert with the last Mexican incident where the US joined the war in ww1 due to an intercepted message to Mexico from Germany to attack the US in order to distract a potential enemy). However the same cannot be said for Russia, and it was rather ambitious trying to get more living space and world domination, advocate racial superiority at the expense of others, and challenge a political system embraced by two existing super powers(PRC then, albeit being forced to halt to resist Japan, was still a force to be reckoned with in the ww2 world stages). It was just too much for him to chew, and going against so many countries with so weak allies(Japan wasnt, however they failed to realize the need for carriers in winning in naval warfare as Yamamoto vainly advocated for, in the end Japan could only be useful as a diversion where the UK and the US had to spend resources to the Pacific theatre as well, and Japan failed at their russian campaigns), Germany was indeed bound to lose as their losing factors were not decided by luck and pure operational slips, but due to blinded orders and too many distractions they were simply doomed.

I would guess you came from Malaya? Germany could only have won the War with a rational thinking Leadership. Give the military a destination and parameters, correct the Generals if necessary but otherwise let them free hands to decide what to do and how to achieve that goal in your favour. Hitler lost focus and was total addicted to beat Russia.

i agree with your point. You guessed incorrectly lol, the conquest of Malaya wasnt a huge victory for the Japanese, yet it was the invasion of the latter guess that was very significant in dealing a blow to the British, and also to add on to the list of Yamashita's achievements in his war career

So I've heard that North Korea was a great choice for a 1-star in 1950. But I’ve also heard that China and USSR are unreliable, and that NATO spams tanks, not to mention the American and Australian naval spam. Is NK actually a great choice?