>mfw people say Hitler "saved" Germany
>ran off all their theoretical scientists because they practiced "Jewish" science
>tacked on retarded requirements to weapons development (all Luftwaffe aircraft must be able to divebomb)
>let Goering force the various branches of the Wehrmact to fight among themselves for funding/supplies instead of arbitrarily doling it out for no other reason but personal amusement
>continued to back weapons projects long after they had become useless(still building U-Boats in 1945)
>decided to seize Kiev instead of pressing on to Moscow in 1941
>continued to waste men and material on the Holocaust up until the end of the war
What other ways did Hitler/the Nazis directly contribute to Germany's downfall?
there is a reason he had massive public support during the 30s when you look at the GDP growth after the great depression although the methods to achieve this growth are infamous
>appoint Hjalmar Schacht as Minister of Economics to turn the German economy around
>fire him 3 years later and replace him with Goering
So what dates are you using?
Its undeniable that Hitler was the power in Germany when it really started getting its shit together after world war 1.
If he "ruined it" then you can equally give him the title of saving it earlier
Can't have one without the other
>Its undeniable that Hitler was the power in Germany when it really started getting its shit together after world war 1.
strictly speaking this is rather easily "deniable" - in the 20s germany was starting to get its shit together pretty okay
it was only later in the post-depression era when hitler and his policies came into effect (although through ridiculously unsustainable means)
And yet without him Germany would've stayed the bitch of the other European nations while under the effects of a huge economic crisis. Sure he fucked up militarily, but he successfully took Germany from castrated shithole to terror of Europe. Even if you don't like him you have to admire those results.
>In 1935 German soldiers weren't even allowed to move freely in Germany
In 1945 German soldiers wasn't even a thing that existed, there were ex-German soldiers and rotting corpses in various eastern European ditches
>That doesn't change the fact that it was Hitler who re-established German sovereignty
Yeah, and then he proceeded to lose it so that the end position was worse than where it started.
If I make 50$ profit today and lose everything tomorrow, that's a net loss. I can't say "I returned to profitability" honestly.
>implying Hitler did that
By the 1930s the Allies didn't care about keeping the boot to Germany's neck and just wanted to keep a new one from happening, as was shown by the reoccupation of the Rhineland. Britain and France were much more worried about the Soviet Union than they were a new German regime. Just look at all the treaties Hitler signed lessening the military restrictions.
In fact, I'm willing to bet if Hitler had wanted to use the thawing in relations between Germany and Great Britain, he could have forged a new Anglo-Germanic alliance.
he meddled incessantly in military matters that he should have left to more competent people
also his whole handling of Stalingrad and the aftermath was moronic, by insisting that Paulus not abandon the city even after Uranus he essentially guaranteed the annihilation of the entire 6th army for no reason at all other than his own butthurt
he successfully took Germany from castrated shithole to divided and permanently occupied by foreign powers, or are we just pretending that history stopped in about 1941?
In this case, the fall was caused by the same person who engineered the rise using the exact same thinking, and the fall left the country in a much worse place than it was when he took power.
>In this case, the fall was caused by the same person who engineered the rise using the exact same thinking, and the fall left the country in a much worse place than it was when he took power.
That's a very simplistic view on what actually happened.
I don't think you belong here.
>it doesn't count even though he literally did it
If I hire a guy to dig a hole for me then say I won't pay him because I could of done that. Does that change the fact he was the one who did it?
The OP asked a question and it was answered. Now people are arguing that it doesn't count
Are you going to pretend that pre 1941 didn't happen? Germany reclaimed lots of land without going to war under Hitler. Yeah he fucked it all up later but that doesn't mean everything he achieved didn't happen
This is how this thread is going
>WHY DO PEOPLE SAY HITLER "SAVED GERMANY" IT WAS IN A WAY WORSE POSITION BY THE END
>Well before the fall he increased germanys lands, reclaimed their national sovereignty and helped economic matters with skilled advisors.
>WELL IT FELL LATER SO ALL OF THAT DOESN'T COUNT
He saved it then lost it.
It's that simple
>That's a very simplistic view on what actually happened.
It's called a "summation". Explain how Germany's defeat in WW2 wasn't caused by Hitler's ineptitude when there is miles of evidence of his incompetence directly impacting the German war effort negatively.
>I don't think you belong here.
Why, because I'm not blindly supporting Hitler?
>it doesn't count even though he literally did it
It implies he alone had a hand in it happening. If a non-Nazi had done the same thing, evidence implies the Allies would have still did what the did considering how hard they tried to avoid war.
>Rise and falls happen a lot in history
Ok let me explain this to you you fucking moron, your Roman Empire analogy is fucking dumb and here's why. Because the Roman Empire is a nation that spanned more than a thousand years across various incarnations before finally falling.
Hitler is a human being (which is different to a nation! (which makes it incomparable, you retard)) who took Germany, the largest, and most populous developed nation in Europe and fucking drove it into the ground so hard that it barely even existed by the time he finally had the decency to hand the reigns over to someone else via a lethal dose of potassium cyanide and a .32 ACP slug to the fucking brainpan. And He did this is barely more than 10 years. That's a fucking accomplishment, he did what it took the poles fucking 100 years and three partitions, what it took the Romans a fucking millennium of economic decline and barbarian invasions to do. And he did it in fucking 12 years of economic mismanagement and incompetent military aggression. The man was a fuckup, an entertaining fuckup but a fuckup none the less.
Oh, I forgot a big one.
>all Panzer units over battalion size required Hitler's personal authorization to move
That order was by far one of the most retarded ever issued in the European Theater. I don't think there was another one anywhere near as limiting.
>Explain how Germany's defeat in WW2 wasn't caused by Hitler's ineptitude when there is miles of evidence of his incompetence directly impacting the German war effort negatively.
You don't even need to go that far, if you start a war and then you lose it that shit is 100% on you.
>He saved it then lost it.
it was not sustainable; debt, nationalization, military spending etc.
although I don't want to discount that full employment was attained during the 30s, real wages in Germany dropped by roughly 25% between 1933 and 1938
>if a non-nazi did the same thing
Did a non-nazi do the same thing or did Hitler do it?
For him to fall he had to rise.
Pretending he was a complete fuckup and never did anything positive is fucking retarded
he had a lot of debt but a lot of it was owed to Germany
Another thing he did was make sure the autobahn was actually made
>it was not sustainable; debt, nationalization, military spending etc.
Analogy: Take out 50 paypay loans. (My Income has skyrocketed!)
Buy a gun (My assets have increased!)
Threaten my neighbors Austria and Czecoslovakia (Diplomatic skills!)
Annex their house (My assets and income and land have all increased!, I also have a pool now that makes me rich)
Pawn their Jewelry to pay off the loans.
They were. FTFY
Choice of reasons
>shitty martial laws
The accelerator of destruction was Germany itself. Now it goes on to be an average country like france, belgium, sweden.
Either Norway or Ireland will wear the crown of being the strongest country
>For him to fall he had to rise.
He Started on rung 10 of the ladder,leaped upwards ever so briefly brushed his fingers against rung 12 then fell to the ground and broke his fucking spine in 6 places, and now you're going "Boy he sure climbed that ladder"
Any Success he achieved was brief and illusory, and ultimately beyond his grasp.
I've always thought Hitler had a lot of potential and some good ideas, but ultimately lost his way and made a lot of mistakes (bit of an understatement, I know).
I would like to see someone with his drive and vision again, but willing to delegate, and with a real long-term plan.
>if you don't think that Hitler was an incompetent retard who did nothing positive ever and was in fact a cartoon villain you are a neo-nazi
Sorry this board is for discussing history not discussing your close minded views
>For him to fall he had to rise.
If I become CEO of a Fortune 500 company and then 10 years later it's in bankruptcy and all my assets are being seized by the IRS. I fucking failed at being a CEO.
>Pretending he was a complete fuckup and never did anything positive is fucking retarded
this is something people have to look at when discussing pre-war hitler. i agree with the OP that his actions led to Germany's ruin, but you have to remember that he had a large amount of public support and was able to rise to the highest office in Germany and established complete control. you don't just fall into a position like that if you are completely incompetent.
I've got a few for you to add-on
>rejected what would have been the first assault rifle right up until Germany nearly fell, due to a preference for submachine guns.
>disregarding the generals that gave him his early victories and pissing the advantage said advice would give him, thinking he could run everything on his own.
>His victory or death out look that was strategically retarded
>His hypochondriac obsession with his own health, drove him to take questionable quack medicine. (If Dr. Oz was there at the time, Hitler would have bought his snake oil bull shit.)
>able to rise to the highest office in Germany and established complete control. you don't just fall into a position like that if you are completely incompetent.
By this logic there are no incompetent politicians
Uh, yes? Its economy had essentially recovered by the time the Great Depression hit. Hyperinflation was a thing of the past by the time he took control. Where Germany was in 1933 was essentially where the rest of the world was. The only thing Germany lacked was a strong military, and the Allies actions during the 1930s showed they were going to let them have that back.
Just as an example, the Deutschland-class cruisers were very obviously over the Versailles Treaty limits imposed on the Reichsmarine, but they were never seriously examined. If France and Britain had cared like they did in the early 20s, Germany would have been threatened with war over that.
there are degrees of incompetence. I think its silly to think he was completely incompetent and his rise to becoming the most infamous person of the 20th century was dumb luck. You can hold the belief that he was a competent politician and committed genocide without being inconsistent.
He was good during the beginning
It just was downhill fast once the war really started
How much evidence is there to that heroin theory thing? Cause I could totally buy that as the reason he started to make really shitty decisions and overall become more paranoid
You know what skill you need to be elected?
You need to be electable.
It sounds tautological but it's fucking true, it's perfectly possible to be electable and be shit at everything else. And fuck, when you've got an army of pissed off
>Muh stabbed in the back
thugs to beat up opposition figures and generally suppress the other guys you don't even need much of that.
That is true but he wouldn't of kept control for 6 years and be able to invade other nations without any significant resistance in Germany
He did very well then started a war which started in success and ended in defeat.
First Hitler was given a throw away position because many in the government were former army men and felt sympathetic because he was in the army during The Great War as well.
Then a man made disaster struck that killed many in the government that many blamed the communist for. And Hitler was just high enough on the list that he was given emergency powers in hopes of keeping order. But instead of trying to rebuild the status quo as they hoped, he went Julius Caesar with the emergency powers.
>kept control for 6 years
>without any significant resistance in Germany
Because he sent all of his opposition to concentration camps. He straight-up became a dictator with full emergency power a month after he was elected. It's hard NOT to rule with no significant resistance if you've used your unofficial armies of thugs and your official armies of police to beat your opponents into submission.
The SS used the Night of the Long Knives to murder politicians that were enemies to the Nazis too, remember.
I think in Guderian's panzer leader he mentioned that after the invasion of Russia started he started to use drugs to go to sleep and wake up, in general he wasn't the same man as before. I'd totally believe he took drugs and shit past 1941.
>That is true but he wouldn't of kept control for 6 years
Re: "Muh stabbed in the back thugs". Easy.
>be able to invade other nations without any significant resistance in Germany
A : A dumb fucking idea (because they lost the war)
B : Planned and executed by other, vastly more competent people.
>He did very well then started a war which started in success and ended in defeat.
If I land the first punch in a boxing match and get Ko'd thirty seconds later. I didn't "start well" I fucking lost, results matter.
Seeing as Hitler was a politician that ran on an antisemitic platform during his tenure as leader and was able to nationalize, annex territories and commit the largest genocide of the 20th century I think there are plenty of other politicians much farther down the list in competence and political acumen.
>If he was so terrible at his job then there would of been more pushback
Jesus, how about FORTY FUCKING TWO ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS
>If he was so terrible at his job then there would of been more pushback
Not that hard if everyone is too scared to push back since you killed everyone brave enough to do so. There have been plenty of really shitty dictators that ruled a lifetime.
Anon, the term "Police State" is thrown around a lot in modern political discourse. It well-describes 1933-1945 Germany. He was unopposed because he made it VERY clear he would murder anyone who dared get in his way, from the lowest peon all the way up to the fucking former Chancellor of Germany. He did this *openly*.
Let's take Mao right? Mao was an incompetent fucking leader. But unlike Hitler, China fucking *survived* his incompetence. However bad his fuckups were there was still something left to fix afterwards.
>it was bad in hindsight
He didn't "get ko'ed in 30 seconds"
It was more of he was taking out every contender then suffered a life changing injury in a fight with the champ which ruined him from fighting ever again
Shit, I wish I could remember where I read an article a little while back that mentioned some sort of accounts/records from his personal physicians and those around him that said he was frequently being dosed up with opiates, along with other high-ranking SS officials who had their own drug habits. Alas, I lack a source and can't confirm it.
Now we are just arguing degrees of incompetence and you even had to use an comparably infamous figure of the 20th century as an example.
Mao was not an incompetent leader in terms of keeping power which I am sure you would agree is a dictator's primary directive. I am not disagreeing with you that Hitler left the country in ruins and has a well-deserved reputation but when you can't even acknowledge that it does take a degree of competence to become the head of state of a country and have complete authority I think you aren't being intellectually honest.
I think its a bit more like
>knock out the former champ (france) in an incredible quick and unexpected fashion
>smack around a bunch of literal whos (greece, yugo ect ect)
>round house kick t-rex (Soviet Union)
>break its leg be ready for the finish blow
>start gloating like a retard
>oh shit its eating me
Now now, let's be fair here. In 1940, knocking out France WAS a massive shock, especially doing it so fucking quickly. However, he quickly pissed that success away by ignoring the people who accomplished that marvel upset and forcing his own plans on the war. Furthermore, the retarded running of the Wehrmacht under Goering would have eventually lead them to ruin regardless.
A proper analogy would be that he defeated the reigning champ by learning from some elite boxing coaches, but got so high on his own success he picked fights with the fighters in the next weight-class up while ignoring the things those coaches taught him to do.
Even though I'm a commie, I must still give quite some credits to the Whermacht during WW2 - a lot of their doctrine seems to have foreseen the changes in military strategy that wouldn't be relevant until the war in the second gulf war - such as human terrain and networking. Their utilization of puppet governments and propaganda was especially efficient.
However, the 2nd World War was also the first large scale proof that invasions and occupations had become an obsolete way of war. Even these strategies couldn't hinder the Balkans and Slavic countries from remaining in a constant state of unrest. Even if Hitler had forced a peace with the Allies and USSR at the height of his power - I can only imagine it turning into a endless Chechnya or Iraq.
Not that anon but let me use the words of a communist party official
"Had Mao died in 1956, his achievements would have been immortal. Had he died in 1966, he would still have been a great man but flawed. But he died in 1976. Alas, what can one say?"
I think very much the same can be used for Hitler.
Had he died in 1939 before invading Poland he would of been seen as a great leader.
that's why I said infamous
it's not exactly a secret the nazi regime committed atrocities like you listed but those are the actual numbers which you need to look at if you want a whole view of history.
>knock out the former champ (france) in an incredible quick and unexpected fashion
Germany had like almost double the population of France.
>smack around a bunch of literal whos (greece, yugo ect ect)
This is like the metaphorical boxer walking into a fucking kindergarten class
>break its leg be ready for the finish blow
You walk up to the T-rex think "Yeah, this is a good idea, this will work, T-rexes are untermenchen anyway"
Say "Hey Mr T-Rex want to be friends?
The T-Rex starts beaming "Oooooh Senpai noticed me", and turns around to hide it's fucking blush
Then while it's back is turned kick it, then by sheer fucking luck the T-Rex had already mostly gnawed its own legs off because it was fucking retarded and as a result it basically just collapses.
Then it fucking eats you
In fact, it was that retarded running that led to the horrible weapons projects late-war. The different branches had to fight on purely personal terms for material; Goering gave it out based on how well he felt they argued for it instead of whether they actually needed it or not.
This is why the Kriegsmarine got to build Type-XXI U-Boats in 1945 while the Heer was screaming for more panzers. Every U-Boat was about 40 tanks worth of steel, plus ever dwindling fuel and trained men. This also led to all the services proposing WunderWaffe near the end instead of reliable designs; couldn't get Hitler and Goering's favor if you presented something *boring* to them.
>Had he died in 1939 before invading Poland he would of been seen as a great leader.
Germany would have collapsed economically, the next guy would have gone "Oh god all the last guy did was build armament factories, how do I salvage this shit?", looked longingly at the fat treasuries of western Europe and thought "Ohhhh THAT'S what he was planning".
You statement is dumb because everything he did in the lead-up to WW2 WAS IN PREPARATION FOR WW2
>Germany was still a very fruitful nation in a lot of ways
Yeah it was, but Hitler had turned that all to armaments production. They could have been enriching themselves building goods for export but all they did was GUNS GUNS GUNS.
Domestic Military spending is not a recipe for economic success.
here is their military spending compared to other future belligerents in the 30s
This is not true. Germany had built up a strong enough army to tell France to fuck off with the treaty of Versailles. They wouldn't have felt too threatened though with the Maginot line, and in general, the west didn't feel like fucking with Germany, and they probably would have just stopped asking for payments. Germany was still incredibly industrialized, with lots of heavy industry and chemical/pharmaceutical production.
I am not sure what point are you trying to make. By the time Hitler came to power, the treaty was a non factor, there were no payments going on. And yes, Germany was industrialized - and it was also focused on military spending in a way that was unsustainable.
No, the didn't. Their attack in the Winter of 1939 was a complete failure.
However, the Finns were not able to secure their defense in that same time. When the spring thaw started, the Soviets started pushing them back and began to rout them.
Germany needed imports for raw materials, to pay for imports they needed exports to keep a favorable balance of trade.
Normally, the money from the goods they were exporting would more than cover than cost of the imports.
BUT they weren't exporting shit because all of their industry was geared towards the domestic military market.
So they were burning through their foreign currency and gold reserves to keep their balance sheets in the green.
Seizing Austria's gold reserves was a boon, and so was seizing Czechoslovakia's. But they were nearly damn near broke in '39, ideally they would have waited longer to further their re-armament but it was a matter of "war or bankruptcy".
Since I obviously can't read the book right now I'm looking at summaries and it states that the German army was weaker then the allied powers.
So wouldn't that mean the allies would also fall into economic ruin?
"What this book suggests is that Germany had lost the war before it invaded the Soviet union and its success up to 1941 had been a lucky break. The author even suggests that Britain alone had some chance of over time developing a preponderance of military force. It also puts paid to what must be now seen as the myth of Munich. Previously it was thought that Britain and France failed to re-arm in time to fight Hitler effectively. What this book shows is that by 1940 Britain and France had armies that were superior in both numbers and equipment."
Had Germany not gone to war they wouldn't of been blockaded and most likely wouldn't be struggling as much with raw materials
No, because the future allies were not spending beyond their means in terms of military spending. Someone else in this thread even posted a chart. That is the core of the issue.
That is the whole issue - the German "miracle" was smoke and mirrors, it was spending what they could not afford, it was military spending that, without war, would have broken the economy.
Sure, in the short term, it did indeed help out Germany - but in order to prolong this short term boost, war was absolutely necessary for them.
>BFFs for life.
Not really. He just believed Hitler would be too busy fighting the Allies during the whole WWII to start a war with him, and just wanted to wait and prepare himself until only one of the factions survived and the other one was weakened enough for him to win afterwards.
Nobody. That's the point. Germany started that war themselves. The only nations who could have were solely uninterested in starting an unprovoked war with them. Stalin might have, but he'd have to get through Poland first.
>So wouldn't that mean the allies would also fall into economic ruin?
Britain and France already had large armies for one thing, so they'd didn't need to ruin themselves RE-arming.
Secondly they spent a lot less despite having large armies, although the Franco-British forces were of comparable size to the German force, they were much worse prepared in terms of training*, and critically supply.
*Obviously they had professional units but the bulk of the French forces were hastily raised conscripts
> just wanted to wait and prepare himself until only one of the factions survived and the other one was weakened enough for him to win afterwards.
This seems to be a common opinion, but it really doesn't hold a lot of historical weight. There is little to no evidence supporting this.
>>rejected what would have been the first assault rifle right up until Germany nearly fell, due to a preference for submachine guns.
That one's sort of a misunderstood myth.
Hitler rejected the MP/StG44 for mass production initially because Germany was already absurdly heavily invested in Rifles in 8mm Mauser and SMGs in 9mm. Producing the '44 wasn't just a matter of producing a new gun and doling it out, it was also a matter of producing and issuing an entirely new round, the short 7.92. It was recognised as (and proved to be) a gigantic logistical nightmare.
Hitler only acceded to it after several generals had gone behind his back and had the thing produced in some numbers by falsifying reports.
Germany identity more or less died in 1945; Germany in 2015 is a shell of her former self.
From a leadership standpoint, Adolf was fantastic. However, his biggest problem was that he surrounded himself with incompetent people and that his success got to his head. Germany under Nazi rule would have been fine if Hitler had stopped after annexing Austria in 1938 or even the Sudetenland later that year.
Stormfags have this ridiculous notion that Britain was out to get Germany from day 1, which completely ignores that Chamberlain was bending over backwards to avoid conflict. It wasn't until March of 1939--when Hitler annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia and violated the Munich Agreement--that Chamberlain finally realized that Hitler couldn't be reasoned with.
It's just logical. In Spain's Civil War, for example, Hitler was helping one faction while Stalin was helping the other. They were clearly not friends, they just decided to sign a non-aggression pact because they were dealing with their own problems at the moment. They were obviously going to try to kill each other at some point.
>Stormfags have this ridiculous notion that Britain was out to get Germany from day 1, which completely ignores that Chamberlain was bending over backwards to avoid conflict.
That's a big deal. Everyone forgets that Czechoslovakia was Britain and France's little lapdog up until Munich. It was the leader of the "Little Entente", and was generally used to threaten Hungary and Austria from getting uppity. They were one of Britain's staunchest allies...and they got sold down the river without a fucking thought. If Britain wanted war, they wouldn't have disarmed the big military power in Central Europe and give all of their extensive fortifications to the enemy before starting it.
so I've looked further into this.
Chamberlain also thought Germany would fall because they didn't attack France quick enough which wasn't true.
While Adam makes good points it doesn't seem that his points aren't concrete fact with other theories also putting out that the economy recovery was real (Dan Silvermans Hitlers Economy) It seems this subject isn't as clear cut as it seems.
"Silverman concludes that the recovery in Germany between 1933 and 1936 was real, not simply the product of statistical trickery and the stimulus of rearmament, and that Nazi work creation programs played a significant role. However, he argues, it was ultimately the workers themselves, toiling under inhumane conditions in labor camps, who paid the price for this recovery"
>They were clearly not friends
Ergo, war was inevitable.
Wait no, that's retarded.
They needed each other (German–Soviet Credit Agreement (1939), German–Soviet Commercial Agreement (1940), German–Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement (1941)). The Soviets wanted German technical assistance to help with their industrialization and the Germans needed the Soviets for raw materials because of the blockade.
The idea that Stalin planned to invade Germany is conspiracy theory-tier trash that can basically all be traced one back to one book (Icebreaker (Suvorov)) which is broadly regarded as trash among actual Historians.
By turning Germany into an imperial power by conquering non-German lands instead of being a German nation-state; so stopping expansion at the Sudetenland.
The question of the polish corridor would likely have been dealt with in a conference with the allies when the USSR starts agitating and France & UK realise they're going to need Germany to beat the soviets and rid Europe of Communism.
Hitler's idiocy and obsession with his ideology pretty much made a general anti-communist front in Europe an impossibility. The allies were always going to choose Fascism over Communism if they had to pick one to work with.
>The allies were always going to choose Fascism over Communism if they had to pick one to work with.
This is an important tidbit. At the time everyone hated Stalin far more than Hitler and by everyone I mean not only the WAllies but also the neutrals, especially Scandinavia, as well.
And with Barbarossa his luck finally ran out. You'd have thought he'd spent that year of downtime (>implying Greece and Yugoslavia counted as wars) building up his army's logistical capacity.
He's the reason Konigsberg was partitioned by the Soviets and Poles. As well as why it had its entire German population displaced or killed
That guy used to have a bridge named after him where I live
>>decided to seize Kiev instead of pressing on to Moscow in 1941
This meme needs to die, the Kiev pocket had to be liquidated or else it would have threatened Hitler's right flank.
Still Barbarossa was a major gamble. Hitler didnt have to invade Russia. They had a non aggression pact that could have been kept till Sealion went off against the UK. Assuming Sea Lion was a success (odds?) then it would have given Hitler time to regroup and rearm. German CANNOT fight a two front war and win. WWI had proven that. Hell, the Prussians had known that way back when.
>Sealion went off against the UK.
You actually believe that sea lion was a feasible plan? You believe that Germany, a country with no appreciable surface navy could invade great Britain and supply his troops with ammunition and reinforcements long enough for Britain to be defeated?
No I don't as a professional historian but if it had turn it would have caused problems not only for Germany but for the uk as well. Sea lion was going to happen without the Royal Air Force being defeated though.
>wasn't even that big a numerical difference
So, you have no idea what you're talking about, is what you're saying?
>He was shit compared to the guys sent to the eastern front.
The guys who also lost? Nice double standard.
Alien Space Bats. It's a term used by alternate history fatbeards to describe an impossible scenario which is only achievable by magic or intervention by said flying mammals.
Absolute Sealion Bullshit would've worked just as well I guess.
Monty had a supply chain and new vehicles. Rommel did not. The fact that he was even able to threaten the Suez, let alone retake the parts of Libya the Italians lost in under a year was a miracle considering what he had to work with.
Was he infallible? Hell no. Was he the best general the Germans had? No. But he wasn't their worst by a fucking long shot.
>Monty had a supply chain and new vehicles. Rommel did not.
Half his tanks were Italian.
The main argument people have against him is that he overextended himself, which is true, but he had no other choice either. I could elaborate as to why but I'm not in the mood to be honest.
If Hitler had waited, the Soviets would have finished reequipping reorganizing their army and would have launched their own invasion of Germany while the Germans were fighting Britain and America( and America would have joined the war regardless of Pearl Harbor, they were already sending armed escorts for British conveys). Hitler had to strike them as soon as possible before the Soviet advantage was overwhelming.
No, I'm saying he was even worse off than you would assume glancing at the numbers and equipment.
Italians were in charge for the logistics most of the time, especially getting them to North Africa.
You're right when you're saying that Germany's strength relied on a very transitory set of advantages and the Soviets were catching up at great speed.
But going so far as to call Barbarossa an Suvorov-tier preemptive strike? I don't know, Hildebrand's 'Flucht nach vorne' doesn't really convinces me even with all said and done above. In any case, Stalin had consistently been very cautious and in '41 the Red Army just wasn't ready for war. Give it another year or two? Sure.
In OTL the Red Army was more than a match for the Wehrmacht after two years even with the catastrophes of Barbarossa, without Barbarossa there may have been a little less urgency but to reform the Red army but there also would not be the massive loss in trained personnel, the Red army would be unbeatable.
And? That has nothing to do with anything. The argument was that since he had no opposition that meant he was doing a good job...when it was actually he brutally cracked down on anyone who didn't immediately suck Nazi dick (no homo because that's degenerate now).
>It is just that the Germany of 1945 was in a much better position,
I would disagree... whatever economic effects the Great Depression would've had in the long-term would not compare to the entire country being occupied, partially destroyed, and losing a large portion of its workforce. Not to mention fucking Europe up in general and allowing the US to take its place.
>But they were nearly damn near broke in '39, ideally they would have waited longer to further their re-armament but it was a matter of "war or bankruptcy".
He knew war against the SU was inevitable. To not fully utilize every drop of resources you have in the production of military equipment would be retarded. People just want to find fault; if he didn't attack the SU and got rolled over because he refused to spend his resources, he would be even more ridiculed.
Have you ever played strategy games? You spend your money ... every last drop of it (unless you are saving for a higher tech or upgrade).
Sorry to butt in here, just reading through, but have to comment on this:
This is true for a long list of reasons.
The Red Army at the start of Barbarossa was in utter chaos. The whole-sale executions of the chain of command in the Red Army to be replaced with party loyalists was the first huge problem.
The second was the recent humilating defeat of the Russians by the Finnish. This caused a huge moral problem.
Tthe next was the inferiority of Russian equipment at the time.
But was was the plus to the Russians? Firstly they had more equipement than all the other nations combined. They had more soldiers than you could wave a stick at and these same soldiers were just as afraid of the political commisars as the invading Germans. The weather did become a saving grace, as the German army was not supposed to be there by the winter time. The German high command literally thought (by this I mean Hitler) they would be in and out within 3 months. but they again were not counting on having their already strained supplies to be stretched anymore than it already had been and when the russians started pumping out those T 34's, well -- things got up in a right mess then, didnt it? The Americans and Brits rolling up on shores soon enough, no real possible help for Rommel in Africa -- all these factors contributed to Germany's defeat. But what a defeat -- one nation fending off the might of three global super powers for such a long time. You cant find this sort of stuff in comic books.
And let's be honest here. If it wasn't for the genocide, people would have LOVED the Nazis. They brought order and efficient government to the areas of the Soviet Union they occupied, and kicked out the murderous Stalinists that had oppressed them. Ukraine in particular. The Slavs would have worshiped Hitler as a savior and happily helped build his Thousand-Year Reich for saving them from Stalin...but then he just started slaughtering them all. In worse ways than the Soviets ever did.
Frankly it was a fucking stupid way to go about territorial conquest, especially when the people you've earmarked for extermination welcomed you with open arms as liberators.
>That is the whole issue - the German "miracle" was smoke and mirrors, it was spending what they could not afford, it was military spending that, without war, would have broken the economy.
This isn't true. The economy was outright functional indefinitely in '36. He pushed military production at the expense of domestic goods after this. It was a reallocation of the country's resources. If he wasn't building so much military equipment, he could easily have fed everyone using domestic labor and sources. His real issue was a labor shortage.
Stalin only wanted Karelia. That's what he demanded before the war, that's what he took in exchange for peace, that's what he agreed to to end the Continuation War.
Stalin got everything he set to accomplish in the Winter War. Therefore, he won.
>He knew war against the SU was inevitable
He also thought that Germany could solo aforementioned USSR, despite the fact that the USSR had twice the industrial capacity, three times the population, around five times the land area in European Russia alone, and was Germany's largest trading partner.
What Hitler should have done is re-armed, re-taken the Rhineland, enacted a quick Anschluss, and then focus on building an actual economy and getting France and Britain behind him for the inevitable war with Russia. But he didn't. He instead demanded the Sudetenland and pissed people off, invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia and pissed people off, allied with friggin' Italy and the Japanese of all people, and then invaded Poland, an act he knew would spark a war with France and Britain. After that, sure, he could Blitz into France, but any war planner could have told Hitler - and most did - that the British would not simply capitulate even if France fell. Despite this the Germans never had any real plan for an invasion of Britain - Operation Seelöwe is a literal joke in the historical community - he did all this anyway and tied Germany down into a war with the UK that it only ever at best had a 50-50 shot of winning.
Yes, the paper called a "map". It doesn't matter if you kill 100,000 of the enemy if you were unable to prevent them from accomplishing what they set out to accomplish. High casualties only mean something when the enemy gives a single shit about them.
I know. It ties into the "Nazis lost they war themselves" part. If they weren't genocidal maniacs, they would have easily been able to hold onto the vast swathes of land they captured. Hell, if they had just WAITED until after the war was won before going genocidal it would have been better for them.
There is such a thing as a Pyrrhic victory, though. The Soviets got what they wanted out of the Winter War, but the cost was immense in the short term. It further convinced Stalin to purge the leadership of the Red Army, while also making Hitler think that the Soviet Union was weak and thereby vulnerable to attack.
Had the Soviets made a better showing in the Winter War, then either the purges might not have happened, or Hitler might not have invaded when he did, or both. In either case the Soviets would have been better prepared for a German invasion.
You really want to blame anyone blame Willy.
>and then focus on building an actual economy and getting France and Britain behind him for the inevitable war with Russia
He always wanted Britain and America to help him defeat the SU. Those were his only two goals: expand eastward and take out Russia. France and Britain declared war on him for expanding eastward, though, remember? They had the chance to side with Germany, but they sided with Russia, who was also being aggressive.
The economy, like I said, had to be stretched to the limits of its capacity if he wanted to catch up with Russian production. In times of peace, he would have toned the economy down a little and it would have been perfectly stable.
> If they weren't genocidal maniacs, they would have easily been able to hold onto the vast swathes of land they captured
I...don't think so, no. Not with the British and Americans breathing down their necks, not with them stretched so thin fighting in the East and the West at the same time.
You also have to remember that the Allies didn't want to simply reverse everything Germany gained in the War; the goal was the complete destruction of German militarism and nationalism.
To be honest, I actually maintain that the absolute worst thing for Germany would be for them to do better in the War. Win a few more battles or at least stall them a bit longer. Drag the War on a few extra months. Because if they're still in the War around August of 1945...
>France and Britain declared war on him for expanding eastward
France and Britain declared war on him for attacking a sovereign country after Germany had been explicitly told that to do so would mean war.
He alienated France and Britain with his actions throughout the 30s, his lies and broken promises about rearmament and Czechoslovakia. Why would France and Britain want to ally with him? Compared to Hitler, Stalin hadn't broken a single promise and was more of a threat to his own people than he was to stability on the Continent.
Think harder, anon. The Red Army was literally throwing down their guns and walking to the German lines in the tens of thousands in 1941. They wanted out of the Soviet Union. It would have taken very little effort to tell them to pick their guns back up and march on Moscow.
If they weren't literally going around wiping out whole villages wholesale, they also wouldn't have had the partisan troubles they did. And they wouldn't have had to use slave labor to build their shit (with all the sabotage that caused).
>and how bad Chamberlain fucked up
Try to remember just how badly all of Europe wanted to avoid another Great War. Chamberlain did fuck up, but it was an understandable fuckup given the climate of the 30s.
>France and Britain declared war on him for attacking a sovereign country after Germany had been explicitly told that to do so would mean war.
Russia did too. They ignored Russia's aggression and not Germany's.
France and Britain were really always against him, although it doesn't look like it on the surface. They knew he needed the land and resources to the east to match Russia. They played the innocent bystander game while Hitler was caught up in a death struggle with Communism. They then overtly opposed him, which pretty much ruined any chances of victory by opening a two-front war.
There's nothing bad you can say about the Nazis that wasn't equally or more true of the SU.
Which, again, leads to the problem that Britain, France, and America are tired of German militarism and nationalism shit (Hitler was seen as merely a symptom of this larger problem) and are not going to let peace break out until Germany surrenders unconditionally. So if the Germans manage to do good and stretch the War out longer, they're gonna be on the receiving end of Little Boy and Fat Man rather than Japan.
Wilhelm II was one of the craziest, narcissistic, self-depreciating whack job of his time. If his cousin has a big navy, why he has to have the biggerest navy. Why if they have 18" guns we need 24" guns. Why won't you guys let me have any African colonies? I deserve them! I want Morocco! I want Algiers! Anyone who disagrees with my policy of making me the dopest coolest most badass king in Europe can get the fuck out of my cabinet!
Even Germophiles realize that Wilhelm II was an absolute fucking mook in comparison to his old man.
>They ignored Russia's aggression and not Germany's.
That's because France and Britain understand the concept of a one-front war. The Soviets could be dealt with later; the immediate problem was Germany.
>They then overtly opposed him, which pretty much ruined any chances of victory by opening a two-front war.
Hitler opened the two-front war, nimrod. The Soviet war plan called for waiting until 1943 at the earliest for war with Germany.
>What other ways did Hitler/the Nazis directly contribute to Germany's downfall?
by not putting uncle heinrich in charge of the whole damn thing.
he wouldve fixed all the problems in europe.
People like to bring up the fact that Hitler fired all the good generals, but the fact of the matter is that they were fired after suffering large defeats.
A large part of that is because Hitler bit off more than he could chew with his plans after the resounding early successes (which were quite lucky).
The invasion of France was never intended to be a Blitzkrieg campaign, it just sort of worked out that way. I honestly think they seriously overestimated their military capabilities after that campaign. Sea Lion would have been a slaughter if they went through with it. Barbarossa was a unprecedented success at first, but it was also a perfect storm of good luck. Once the Soviets got their ass in gear Hitler was forced into a battle he could not have won, and when his generals inevitably failed he fired them. Even if they had pressed for Moscow earlier, the battle there would have made Stalingrad look like a paintball fight.
>Allies can invade Germany with relatively little effort because they share a border
>Soviet Union is hundreds of miles away behind hostile territory and hostile waters
The Allies weren't as strategically dumb as Adolf. They knew they couldn't fight Stalin at the time.
>That's because France and Britain understand the concept of a one-front war. The Soviets could be dealt with later; the immediate problem was Germany.
Except they weren't. Against people like Patton's advice, they let the SU grow until it became a threat of gigantic proportions.
>Hitler opened the two-front war, nimrod. The Soviet war plan called for waiting until 1943 at the earliest for war with Germany.
That's why Hitler attacked. He knew he was on a timer. The longer he waited the more the balance of power was against him. He could have attacked even earlier if Italy didn't need help in Greece and France didn't declare war on him.
>If his cousin has a big navy, why he has to have the biggerest navy.
This is a myth.
- First of all, the German Navy was essentially the idea of Admiral Tirpitz.
- Second, Germany never aimed to have a bigger navy than the British Empire.
Tirpitz goal was to have what he called a "Risikoflotte" a navy large enough to make people think twice about attacking. His goal never was to outnumber the Royal Navy but the goal was to have 2/3rds of its size.
The British Empire however had a policy which dictated that the Royal Navy had to be at least two times as large as the two largest continental navies, and that's where the whole "arms race" came from.
What you attribute to Wilhelm II wasn't even his idea, let alone some sort of supposedly childish personality trait which demanded to have a "bigger" navy - which in fact can be attributed to the British who in fact had that very sort of policy. Not for childish reasons of course, but for very cool-headed political reasons.
Nice regurgitating of propaganda here.
Oh, yeah, that's more than a fact. I really understand that. But with how Versailles went, you'd figure there would have came a point they decided to more aggressively nip it in the bud. Poland was probably that point anyhow, but Chamberlain, by most accounts I've read, didn't do a firm and clean appeasement, he wilted like a fucking daisy.
Anyways, as to what >>94316
Said, I just realized something I'd like to hear if anyone really knows about it. I actually am not that informed on Nazi racial policy, and it's supposedly a huge thing. There's of course, the whole Jew thing, and then I know it's a huge fucking dumb fallacy where everyone harps on about "Everyone not blonde and blue eyed!", but where exactly does race come into it, what was the standard?
Like, what was the day-to-day in Nazi occupied France? It was primarily Jews and Gypsies getting nabbed, right? How deep did it go, was he going for the blacks, too? Was it just white people in the street? How did race factor into what the Nazis did in an everyday sense?
>russia let the jewish controlled bolsheviks take control of their country
>oy vey we gotta stop germany
france and britian only cared because of 'banking interests'
He wasn't threatening at all. His living space ideology was exclusively applied eastward. Like I said, France and Britain got right in his way, knowing it would slow down his build-up to the inevitable war against the SU.
If you really think they just let Stalin slide because of geography, you don't know what you are talking about. He propositioned Britain about a billion times to help him knock down Russia. The world teamed up on Hitler. Why? That's the real question. He was objectively no worse than Stalin.
I've heard that the economic recovery of Germany was largely due to policies of politicians that were in place before Hitler and that Hitler actually delayed it by sacking or assassinating a bunch of them. Any veracity to this?
Operation Unthinkable was named Operation Unthinkable for a reason, nimrod.
>He could have attacked even earlier if Italy didn't need help in Greece and France didn't declare war on him.
Or he could have not invaded Poland or Czechoslovakia and focused on building up an actual alliance with Britain and France against the Soviets, rather than assuming that if he beat the French and the British in war then the two would be happy to help him against the Soviets.
He literally had a bully mentality: "If I beat someone then they have to do what I say."
There weren't really enough Blacks in France to target in any meaningful sense. There were Blacks in Germany during WWII that weren't really targeted either. There just weren't enough of them to get people riled up about it.
People like this are from /pol/ albeit civil they're still wrong but will refuse to educate themselves and will instead repeat the same mantra over and over again. This argument can be found there very frequently.
>Russia did too. They ignored Russia's aggression and not Germany's.
The UK and France had no obligation to defend Poland against the USSR as per the agreement with Poland.
>France and Britain were really always against him, although it doesn't look like it on the surface.
That's why they've let him run amok in Europe and supported him all the way until he broke the Munich agreement, right? You know, when Hitler EXPLICITLY STATED that the Sudetenland were his last territorial demand in Europe before breaking it and annexing the Czechs and started making yet new demands on Poland?
>They played the innocent bystander game while Hitler was caught up in a death struggle with Communism.
Ah, yes, "they", after France was invaded by Hitler and after Hitler STARTED his "death struggle against Communism" on his own free will.
>There's nothing bad you can say about the Nazis that wasn't equally or more true of the SU.
And then the standard finish, "Soviets were worse"
Considering how they conspicuously stayed out of the war with the Soviets and only took back their pre-WW1/Balkan War territory, they were almost certainly on the List.
I mean, their Tsar got assassinated in 1943. They were obviously only allies for the duration of the war.
>Any aggressive military power that violates its treaties and agreements is threatening.
They were there to hold him back. They were designed exclusively to keep him weak.
>Or he could have not invaded Poland or Czechoslovakia and focused on building up an actual alliance with Britain and France against the Soviets
They weren't going to help him. They were acting like they might to try to placate him, but he knew it was just a bluff. Do you read Sun Tzu? The first law of war and politics is to make yourself strong. Depending on someones support is a bad strategy.
If they were going to help him, they would have helped him regardless. You are delusional. If they really cared about taking out the SU they would have let him have Eastern territory. Instead they ignored Russia and impeded German progress every step of the way.
>He wasn't threatening at all. His living space ideology was exclusively applied eastward.
So...fuck Poland? That's what you want the British and French to say?
"Not Anglo, fuck 'em."
>He was objectively no worse than Stalin.
The only time Stalin made land grabs was during declared war working alongside his allies. Stalin was horrible to Russians, but his paranoia was focused inward rather than outward. For all his talk about global Communism, Stalin's paranoia would never have led him to do more than take tiny nibbles from his immediate neighbors, as he did in Finland and at Karkhan Gol.
Compare/contrast to Hitler, who said that all he wanted was the Sudetenland, was given the Sudetenland, and then gobbled up all of Czechoslovakia anyway six months later. This after Anschlussing with Austria, a move explicitly forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles. And THAT after re-armament and the occupation of the Rhineland.
Seriously, how can you NOT see the geopolitical difference? Hitler lied and expanded aggressively. Stalin kept his word and at most nibbled around the edges.
>Seriously, how can you NOT see the geopolitical difference? Hitler lied and expanded aggressively. Stalin kept his word and at most nibbled around the edges.
It was mostly land the Prussian empire had had, anyhow. It's not like he was invading 100-year-old countries. He went against the Treaty of Versailles because it wasn't possible to build a strong enough country without doing so.
Heres the thing, and let me tell you, its also the ting with all the shit you fucking asshats pull from your ass. Your blaming the many for the actions of the few. Its like, Revolutionaries try and rebel, so you blame the entire fucking jewish population? Just because they were jews? Thats like exterminating Italian Americans because some are into organized crime. Its a pattern, your the same way with every race. And the ironic part is, white europeans do some bad shit to, probably even worse then what jews did, but your not gonna blame them, and even support them? Fuck off, biased piece of shit. Go back to containment board.
Interesting. So it's sort of like that guy said, they would have had a much bigger shot at the war if he didn't try and exterminate the Slavs too, because a lot were welcoming the Nazi's with open arms. That explains a lot, that barely got touched anywhere even up to college.
Man, not to go full /pol/, but I really wish they'd have talked more about shit like that then focusing on the Holocaust being all about Jews. That's important. I don't think I've heard about a single genocide or anything like that in a textbook other than a sideways mention of Armenia or Rwanda, and this shit's kind of important.
> If they really cared about taking out the SU
Is it perhaps possible that they cared about taking out the Soviet Union until some scrawny little Charlie Chaplain impersonator started aggressive expansion that made him the bigger threat given that he could not be relied upon to keep any promise he made or obey any treaty he signed?
This is not hard.
>Do you really think that anyone who could have challenged germany would have backed off because of a few ships?
Yes, because if you're going to lose a sizeable part of your fleet in the process you're going to think twice about attacking.
It's a foolish mistake to believe that in order to deter someone from attacking you you actually need to be as strong or stronger. You just need to be strong enough to make the attack too expensive in relation to the possible gains and provide a way cheaper diplomatic route.
Not to mention that defending is always easier than attacking, so fighting a defensive war is going to need less power in order to provide a significant threat.
sorry faggot, this isnt a revisionist history board.
fuck off back to whatever shithole you crawled out of.
britian and france attacked germany because of international banking interests.
>It's not like he was invading 100-year-old countries.
First, Czechoslovakia was entirely under Austro-Hungarian control, not Prussian. Ever. And it was made up largely of ethnic Czechs and Slovaks, excepting the Sudetenland.
Second, somehow I think that this doesn't make much of a difference to Czechs, Slovaks, or Poles.
Third, the British and the French had a treaty with Poland to defend Polish sovereignty from German attack. I know your hero made a habit out of wiping his ass with treaties, but it's not usually a good move politically speaking, as you can see from how Hitler's decisions ended up playing out in the 1940s.
>He went against the Treaty of Versailles because it wasn't possible to build a strong enough country without doing so.
And if he'd stopped at the Anschluss he might have been able to keep Britain and France on his side for the "inevitable" confrontation with Stalin. But he didn't, and WWII is the natural result.
And yet, Hitler and the other Beer Hall Putsch conspirators were welcomed with open arms when they were released from prison. Where they had spent years for treason.
Strange, the Germans didn't seem to care about that "attempt to subvert the lawful government".
>I know your hero
Lol. Actual geopolitical analysis is /pol/ now.
>And if he'd stopped at the Anschluss he might have been able to keep Britain and France on his side for the "inevitable" confrontation with Stalin.
The conflict between the West and the SU was the real illusion. A lot of smack-talk but no war. Germany was the only country that was wiped off the face of the earth, and it's not like the Western powers couldn't have sacked Russia after WWII. Lots of things get said in politics; you can only surmise that their actions are all that was ever meant.
I don't like how with /pol/ they up play the few decent things about there dear leader Adolf Hitler. But for the creepy, fucking weird shit him and the nazis did, they downplay it as jewish propaganda.
To be exact, that would be >muh JIDF
Not that I expect you to know dank /pol/ maymays
>The only time Stalin made land grabs was during declared war working alongside his allies.
What about the Winter War though?
That isn't to say that you can compare Stalin to Hitler, but you must also take into consideration what state the Soviet army way in. Their behavior post-WW2 makes it clear that they had no problem with taking over large amounts of land, either.
The arguement against yours is that these were the few. You cannot exterminate and steal from everysingle jew in the country just because some fuckers tried to start shit with the government. Like there were many hard earning jews in Germany who got shit stolen from them and who never got that back.
Most of the "creepy" and "weird" things are actually myths and Allied propaganda. For example most of the Esoteric nonsense and Occultism surrounding the Nazis is almost completely made up. The Holocaust happened without doubt, but there was hardly anything weird or creepy about it, or about the Nazis in general. It was all dull bureaucracy and the Nazis were foremost bureaucrats.
Hitler in particular has been shrouded by myth, like Sargon of Akkad for example, where one can barely tell what the historical figure was like without running into made up nonsense and superlatives.
>handful of ethnic Jews attempt failed revolution
Well, if that's the standard, I guess Germany would be justified in sending any ethnic Austrians to the camps too, right? Since one of them led an attempt to overthrow the government.
>calls people kikes
>calls people schlomo
Read. The. Fucking. Sticky or fuck off back to >>>/pol/
Listen up tard, get an education, I've browsed /pol/ enough to know much of the userbase is literally retarded and has no basic knowledge of history, just like you.
Here's an exampl
>>The only time Stalin made land grabs was during declared war working alongside his allies.
>What about the Winter War though?
German and the USSR agreed in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact that Finland belongs in the Soviet sphere and Hitler even prevented arms shipments from Italy arriving to Finland. The same pact that also split Poland.
britian and france only cared about germany, because of international jewish banking interests.
>they stopped our attempts at enslaving them with communism
>and theyve rejected our banks
>kill them, goyim.
germany was punished for defending itself.
I don't know man. My teacher in high school said his father was one of the concentration camp liberators. They go in, find a library, he said he saw a lot of creepy shit. Like bear fetishes.
Yes, they didn't invade Russia when they invaded Poland; they didn't attack Russia after WWII, despite talking about how evil they were, but they really meant it when they said they were against Russia.
Isn't it convenient that the only country that had military action taken against them was Germany. Do you really think that politics is a game of responding? It's all about competing agendas. If Russia is untouched and Germany is destroyed, that's the way it was wanted. What looks like responses in politics are actual just pretexts to do what you already wanted to do.
The fucker was a greedy, egotistical asshole that didn't actually think about the welfare of his people. It's one thing to be a fascist and love your people, it's another to delude yourself and bring about their downfall. Look at the pathetic, war hating mess Germany is now. Hitler did that, and fuck anyone who thinks he didn't ruin Europe.
>German and the USSR agreed in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact that Finland belongs in the Soviet sphere and Hitler even prevented arms shipments from Italy arriving to Finland. The same pact that also split Poland.
I just assumed that you talked about the post-WW2 landgrab by the Soviets, so I asked to be sure, as calling Hitler and Stalin allies goes a bit to far in my opinion.
Make yourself a tea and calm down a bit, fucker.
>Yes, they didn't invade Russia when they invaded Poland
Because the alliance they had with Poland only covered Germany. The clause that put Eastern Poland in the Soviet sphere was, you know, secret.
>they didn't attack Russia after WWII
Because they were militarily spent.
>Isn't it convenient that the only country that had military action taken against them was Germany.
France and Britain literally intervened in the Russian Civil War. They were only biding their time until Stalin presented a direct threat...but then a little Bavarian Corporal started breaking treaties while aggressively seizing territory from his neighbors much closer to home.
Finally, your claim of the Allies looking for war with Germany falls flat with one single fact: they sold Czechoslovakia down the river. If they wanted a war with Germany, the Sudetenland was the perfect excuse for it, and the Czechs were well-prepared to fight Hitler. if they REALLY wanted war with Germany, they would have told Hitler "Just try to take the Sudetenland" instead of signing over one of their closest ally's defensive line to its mortal enemy.
>Heisenberg was not only a pre-eminent physicist whom the Nazis realised they were better off with than without, however "Jewish" his theory might be in the eyes of Stark and Lenard, but Heisenberg had, as a young boy, attended school with SS chief Heinrich Himmler. In a historic moment, Heisenberg's mother rang Himmler's mother and asked her if she would please tell the SS to give "Werner" a break.
>it's not like the Western powers couldn't have sacked Russia after WWII
Except they couldn't, what kind of an idiot are you? Look at the disparity of forces, read up on operation unthinkable.
>stormweenies whine on
Tbh Nuclear devices are wholly unethical in war.
Hitler had all the technology and plans to build the bomb but he disregarded it for being too destructive and evil.
If I could go back in time I'd probably kill Oppenheimer and prevent anyone from making nuclear bombs and streamline nuclear research for energy production.
Yeah, with little puny nukes, right? Tactical nuclear weapons today have more strength than the A-bombs made in world war 2. Not to mention the majority of Russian cities are out of range to any American fighters and thus aren't really susceptible to bombing.
Even if you nuked them that wouldn't stop the millions of soviet troops from literally over running half of Europe up. You essentially want the allies to go in another major war costing potentially tens of millions of lives for the sake of "fairness".
Dude, fucking what? I agree that they are pretty evil, but they're a necessary evil. Do you seriously want to imagine a fucking Cold War without MAD and Detente? That would have been horrible, Christ.
The people on /pol/ are ultimately upset that Jews typically are apart of the leftist establishment, and are realitivly knowledgeable of the history of Jews in Europe and the hundreds of times they were banished.
In pre-war Germany a large portion of bankers and media owners were Jews, as well as a large portion of literary producers (who were in turn promoted by the Media). The bankers caused a series of panics during their times and fueled the harboring anti-Semitism in reaction to the hate that Jews express for Europeans.
They say they deserved it, that being their removal of power during hitlers time, and their deaths from starvation, typhus, and Allied bombing, ultimately that's just being an edgy cunt.
By "the holocaust never happened" they mean "a large portion of the narrative we are fed is not actually what happened".
I would say 700.000 jews died in total.
Dispicable and disgusting.
But it's actually believable rather than 6.000.000 jews and 6.000.000 poles.
Ultimately the holocaust was a polish suffering propagated by the Jews as a Jewish suffering.
>implying I'm a Stormfag
Hitler was a piece of shit and Jews were certainly persecuted and abused under Nazi rule, and atrocities were certainly committed on the Eastern Front by both sides.
The ONLY thing I'm contending is that there was no attempt to systematically exterminate Jews in the camps via gas chambers.
Nice Strawman though
They were being mass deported for a reason. If anything the Germans and Polish were going to fucking kill them if they wernt put in camps.
Anti-Semitism was pretty rampant regardless of hitler.
>The ONLY thing I'm contending is that there was no attempt to systematically exterminate Jews in the camps via gas chambers.
You're right! Congratulations, you've figured something out.
That's what the Einsatzgruppen were for.
Einsatzgruppen were an anti-partizan force to clean up behind the rapidly advancing army to prevent people from affecting the local populace or destroy the already very loose supply lines.
There were just lots of partizans that were Jews.
Well, as fucking terribly presented as it is, what he posted is factual and on Wikipedia for all to see
Yes I agree that the Einsatzgruppen conducted massacres against both Slavs and Jews
However I don't see how that refutes my original point about the gas chambers. Are you trying to tell me the Einsatzgruppen are responsible for the majority of the 6,000,000 dead now? I don't see what you're getting at.
>world's largest period of struggle and innovation ever seen.
So you just really didn't pay attention during the Cold War, huh?
I mean, maybe it would have been good, we might have actually exterminated Communism and had a lower global population. But it would have been a thousand times more brutal and bloody than anything nukes have done to this point. Like I said, necessary evil.
Yeah, this will be difficult ground here for a while, if not forever. It's the same way in real life. Something happened, there were definitely concentration camps, there was definitely Jewish and Slavic persecution, and Hitler and the Nazis were pretty bad. However, he wasn't always wrong, and not every single German was a baby-raping monster.
It behooves us as students of history to find the middle ground, the truth between narratives. It's a matter of fact we're being fed at least a partially false narrative for whatever end, between the six million or the idea that Hitler was totally out to kill everyone who wasn't blonde and blue-eyed. It's a shame that most of the people that push it are actual racists, and it's even worse that it can make you a pariah in society to even suggest it.
Our pursuit is knowledge and truth, and it should be below us to just write everything on either side off as propaganda, or short-sighted racism or whatever. The labels and furor and politics mean little in the face of the truth.
>Killing a few tens of thousands of Germans is a little different don't you think?
Check your numbers again, Hans. The German Revolution wasn't anywhere near that bloody, and most of the dead were Communists.
Oh, you're of the Outer Heaven school of war. Got it, Boss.
You're all fucking idiots, Bismark fucked Germany diplomatically by alienating Russia and signing an alliance with that rotten corpse of an empire called Austria-Hungary, Wilhelm was dealt with a shit hand thanks to him when he took the throne and tried to amend relations with Russia to no avail.
No not really, I just believe war is the best and only relevant invention of man, and should use it whenever nessicsry and should always be prepared for it.
If there is no war left to be done, war againts nature, try and make underwater cities, conquer the ocans, the skies, and then attempt to colonize other planets.
Spread your species as far across the galaxy as possible.
>why would a group of people, who have been treated with only disdain as a consequence of their birth, be the most likely to support an ideology that desires economic and political equality for everyone?
I didn't know every race has a hivemind anon
its funny, i guess everybody else was the problem all along..
>Are Jews a race?
>Oy vey anti-semite.
>We're a religion!
>(Or whatever gives us the advantage at the time)
Hitler persecuted based on both. If you were Ethnically Jewish or Religiously Jewish. He was an equal opportunity maniac.
you're literally just posting the same unsubstantiated shit that you were in the other thread that got deleted. this isn't contribution, this is mindless regurgitation of Stormfront. You don't even understand what it is you're posting, because you don't know the images context. All that image proves, for example, is that Europe has a history of anti-Semitism. They were expelled from cities for being suspected of causing the Black Death.
I guess it wasn't nobles being unable to pay their debts to Jewish lenderers, and taking the easy way out. Or blatant uninformed hatred, in an era where people were burned for witchcraft?
Yes. And all it means is that Europe has a history of anti-Semitism. You're literally bringing up tropes of Jews poisoning the well that people used in the time of the plague to demonise the Jews. You have literally not advanced since the middle ages.
Of course not. But a relatively self sufficient, segregated group of people that partake in a traditionally reviled occupation like usury are unlikely to exist without disdain. And disdain is a small step away from outright hatred.
Jews were expelled in the middle ages because they were accused of poisoning wells, which affected the village's humours and therefore caused the black plague. You have not advanced since the middle ages.
Well, at least during the middle ages each person was sane and rational.
>Muh storm faggot
>can't get over half truths
Mainly Usury and money related crimes.
Also breaking godly laws like farming eachothers land on the Sabbath.
There's also blood libel, and poisoning wells; but those are all just a "conspericy theory"