[zabzonk]

man to man, no, but arguably they lost it tactically because their troops/pilots kept taking the pills, without rest and getting worse and worse, until they were wiped out, which lost them almost all of their experienced troops/pilots, whereas the western allies rotated their troops/pilots out of combat.

[sneed_chucker]

> but arguably they lost it tactically because their troops/pilots kept taking the pills,

I don't think you'll find a single mainstream historian who would agree with that take.

Germany lost the war because they lacked the logistics to sustain a multi-front war against the combined military and industrial power of the USSR, the United States, and Great Britain. No amount of pervitin added or subtracted from this equation would have changed that outcome.

[zabzonk]

strategically yes, but i think historians of the luftwaffe would agree that it was fataly dammaged because its pilots never got a rest. didn't help that the rest of german high command, up to hitler himself, were all on pills/injections. you can't imagine eisenhower getting into such a state.

[sneed_chucker]

Again, the pills are not the decisive thing here. The Luftwaffe had to counter constant allied bombing of cities and industry both day and night, while also supporting advancing troops on the front. All the while, the allies are running a successful campaign to eliminate Germany's sources of petroleum which eventually all but neuters the operational capacity of the Luftwaffe.

Frankly, it sounds to me like you've let Norman Ohler's pop history book, Blitzed, disproportionately color your perception of the second world war.

[tmottabr]

But the pilots were taking pills and never getting rest because the army had to cover two war fronts while lacking the resources to do so..

using pills and not resting enough was a symptom of the problem of having to fight a war in two fronts, not resting and taking pills was not the problem itself..