Many rulers could have made decisions that prevented the loss of most or the best part of their territory.

For example. If instead of wasting all the earning form his colonies (gold, silver, tobacco, chocolate, vanilla, etc,) and money borrowed from Austrian bankers and his men in wars against Britain, France, the Ottoman empire, Holland, etc, Phillip, king of Spain, Portugal, etc, had sold his properties to the king of France and moved with most of his people to the Americas his empire would have thrived. 90% of the native population of all the Americas would died from epidemics, leaving huge territories that could be occupied with little fighting. The isolation would have ensured fewer wars and greater population growth than in belligerant Europe.
Phillip could have ruled much more effectively over most of his huge empire, which included the Philippines, which were governed from Mexico at the time.
In contrast, the king of Portugal migrated to Brazil when Napoleon invaded his country and his son became the emperor of Brazil, which thrived and when most of the Spanish colonies gained their independence, Brazil took over the large, formerly Spanish sugar producing regions that supplied Spain, extending its already huge territory.

The US lost Canada during the independence war because the 2 American forces did not attack simultaneouly, but attacked one city first and allowed those British troops to escape and reinforce the other city.

Napoleon would make the same mistake as Phillip. Instead of moving to Louisiana, he would sell it for pennies to Jefferson and waste the money in European wars that ruined France and cost him everything.

King George would lose the US, instead of moving his capital to America and extending his dominions there.

Mexico lost most of its terriory to the US in large part because it encouraged thousands of Americans to migrate legally to Texas.

Turkey lost a huge empire that included a huge part of the world's oil reserves in WW I. Germany lost its part of Poland and its numeorus colonies in Africa, China and the Pacific. Austria lost Hungary, Czrchoslovakia, Galicia in Poland, Croatia, etc,

Hitler lost the best part of Europe because he decided to attack his best ally, the USSR, while he was still fighting Britain, South Africa, Canada, India, Australia, NZ, etc,

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

Many rulers could have made decisions that prevented the loss of most or the best part of their territory.

For example. If instead of wasting all the earning form his colonies (gold, silver, tobacco, chocolate, vanilla, etc,) and money borrowed from Austrian bankers and his men in wars against Britain, France, the Ottoman empire, Holland, etc, Phillip, king of Spain, Portugal, etc, had sold his properties to the king of France and moved with most of his people to the Americas his empire would have thrived. 90% of the native population of all the Americas would died from epidemics, leaving huge territories that could be occupied with little fighting. The isolation would have ensured fewer wars and greater population growth than in belligerant Europe.
Phillip could have ruled much more effectively over most of his huge empire, which included the Philippines, which were governed from Mexico at the time.
In contrast, the king of Portugal migrated to Brazil when Napoleon invaded his country and his son became the emperor of Brazil, which thrived and when most of the Spanish colonies gained their independence, Brazil took over the large, formerly Spanish sugar producing regions that supplied Spain, extending its already huge territory.

The US lost Canada during the independence war because the 2 American forces did not attack simultaneouly, but attacked one city first and allowed those British troops to escape and reinforce the other city.

Napoleon would make the same mistake as Phillip. Instead of moving to Louisiana, he would sell it for pennies to Jefferson and waste the money in European wars that ruined France and cost him everything.

King George would lose the US, instead of moving his capital to America and extending his dominions there.

Mexico lost most of its terriory to the US in large part because it encouraged thousands of Americans to migrate legally to Texas.

Turkey lost a huge empire that included a huge part of the world's oil reserves in WW I. Germany lost its part of Poland and its numeorus colonies in Africa, China and the Pacific. Austria lost Hungary, Czrchoslovakia, Galicia in Poland, Croatia, etc,

Hitler lost the best part of Europe because he decided to attack his best ally, the USSR, while he was still fighting Britain, South Africa, Canada, India, Australia, NZ, etc,

The "best part of Europe"?? Do you refer to the wine countries? He lost the whole of Europe, even Germany.

Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Hungary, Romania, part of Russia, etc, are in Europe and never belonged to the Reich, so Hitler lost the best part of Europe, not all Europe.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

Many rulers could have made decisions that prevented the loss of most or the best part of their territory.

For example. If instead of wasting all the earning form his colonies (gold, silver, tobacco, chocolate, vanilla, etc,) and money borrowed from Austrian bankers and his men in wars against Britain, France, the Ottoman empire, Holland, etc, Phillip, king of Spain, Portugal, etc, had sold his properties to the king of France and moved with most of his people to the Americas his empire would have thrived. 90% of the native population of all the Americas would died from epidemics, leaving huge territories that could be occupied with little fighting. The isolation would have ensured fewer wars and greater population growth than in belligerant Europe.
Phillip could have ruled much more effectively over most of his huge empire, which included the Philippines, which were governed from Mexico at the time.
In contrast, the king of Portugal migrated to Brazil when Napoleon invaded his country and his son became the emperor of Brazil, which thrived and when most of the Spanish colonies gained their independence, Brazil took over the large, formerly Spanish sugar producing regions that supplied Spain, extending its already huge territory.

The US lost Canada during the independence war because the 2 American forces did not attack simultaneouly, but attacked one city first and allowed those British troops to escape and reinforce the other city.

Napoleon would make the same mistake as Phillip. Instead of moving to Louisiana, he would sell it for pennies to Jefferson and waste the money in European wars that ruined France and cost him everything.

King George would lose the US, instead of moving his capital to America and extending his dominions there.

Mexico lost most of its terriory to the US in large part because it encouraged thousands of Americans to migrate legally to Texas.

Turkey lost a huge empire that included a huge part of the world's oil reserves in WW I. Germany lost its part of Poland and its numeorus colonies in Africa, China and the Pacific. Austria lost Hungary, Czrchoslovakia, Galicia in Poland, Croatia, etc,

Hitler lost the best part of Europe because he decided to attack his best ally, the USSR, while he was still fighting Britain, South Africa, Canada, India, Australia, NZ, etc,

If King Philip IV of Spain would have moved to the Americas, and Napoleon to Louisiana and King George to America the war would have continued, but not on European soil but on American. And the king of Portugal could have lost Brasil to King Philip IV. And Europe would be up for grabs.

If Phillip had moved to America first he would have displaced all the other nations, including Portugal. France would have unified Europe. War between continents against a well established, very wealthy kingdom was extremely unlikely at the time (the defender having a big advantage over an army travelling for over a month at sea at great cost and risk).

The US was in excellent terms with France and Spain was in no condition to defend its territory, so Napoleon would have occupied the huge Indian territories and Spanish Colonies with much less difficulty than having to fight millions of Russians, Germans, British, Swedes, Austrians, Spanish guerillas, etc, The pópulation and military forces in the Americans were far smaller and the potential gains much greater.

If any one of those had moved to America the situation both in Europe and America would have been more stable and the population density and resources more evenly distributed.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Hungary, Romania, part of Russia, etc, are in Europe and never belonged to the Reich, so Hitler lost the best part of Europe, not all Europe.

Yes, Hitler never occupied Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden, and the British Isles (except for the English Channel Islands). Therefore by definition he could not loose them, you cannot loose something you do not have. Finland was an ally to the Germans, but they shifted side in 1944. Hungary and Romania were allied to Germany.

Originally Posted by Ghostrider

Yes, Hitler never occupied Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden, and the British Isles (except for the English Channel Islands). Therefore by definition he could not loose them, you cannot loose something you do not have. Finland was an ally to the Germans, but they shifted side in 1944. Hungary and Romania were allied to Germany.

Think Hungary & Romania both "switched sides" after the Soviets over ran them also.

Originally Posted by George

Think Hungary & Romania both "switched sides" after the Soviets over ran them also.

I think you are right, thanks, George.