And if you're going to give me something about how Hitler was a terrible military leader than give me specifics.
It seems to me the real key was manufacturing ability where the US was just able to keep putting out planes and tanks and ships faster than Germany could get rid of them.
So would Germany have one if they had had more factories and more raw materials early on in the game so they could out produce America and the other allies?
[ - ] Belfuro 1 point 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 20:11:53 ago (+2/-1)
This.
When Germany raised up in revolt the initial judeo-satanists plan to recapture Germans was to use Poland.
This is why Poland had an army the same dize as Germanys. Funded by other goyim slave states. (Parallels with Ukraine today).
Poland mobilized in March 1939 which began the clock for war.
But Germany crushed Poland and Stalin went awol from under their control being a nationalist bolshevik leader as opposed to the desired globslist trotsky.
Ok so plan b. Mobilize France and Uk. Should of been enough.
Plus by thus time usa was in a cold war vs Germany too.
Wasn't enough as France was crushed.
So a plan was concocted to turn 100% isolationist usa into 100% jingoistic
A 911 in 1941.
Germany was defeating USSR. But usa on top was too much for them.
Plus don't doubt for a second that satan (probably an alien anunnaki of the enlil faction) fed the allies advanced war winning tech. Computers, intelligence, magnetron, nukes)
This is why at key battles where luck was claimed as the excuse, allies won.
I think Germany scared our hidden alien overlords.
I think that was ultimately the reason why they decided to exterminate whites. We are too dangerous.
In short. A Germany twice the size would of won. 80million rebels was not enough and the other axis powers were pretty shit.
An anoki around that would be interesting. Yeah the whole the white people ate of the tree of knowledge too much kind of philosophy. A lot I don't know what the hell the Anna nookies for these days on earth if they're around
The entire world was unified against them. They didn’t really have a chance, since the war was declared ON them.
Did they just not seize enough oil fast enough or did they just not have enough factories or did they just not start bombing Britain and America fast enough?
The US illegally sent infinite supplies to the USSR before we were even in the war. FDR conspired with Churchill to purposely get the US into the war afterward. The UK government was told by jews not to surrender in exchange for waiting for America to join, just like the First World War. There just really wasn’t any hope.
If you want to talk about specific things Germany could have done to sort of upset this, capturing the British at Dunkirk and forcing them into peace in exchange for the hostages might have helped a little, but likely not much. With war inevitably being declared later against the USSR, the UK would have instantly jumped back in to fight Germany in defense of communism.
And if you're going to give me something about how Hitler was a terrible military leader than give me specifics.
He was fine. His generals disobeyed him and lied to him about it, particularly when he was laid up with illness.
Yea, lots of reasons really. But i think taking on the Soviets was a given and had to be done - Stalin was always going to attack and backstab Germany.
[ - ] dassar 1 point 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 17:22:47 ago (+1/-0)
Agreed. Unfortunately, the deal from the allies was demonstrably better - no way German could compete with the Land Lease unless Russia was willing to accept a post war IOU.
[ - ] dassar 1 point 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 21:21:35 ago (+1/-0)
Y>Barbarossa was not a cause for the defeat. It was a huge success.
Yea sure, Russia had huge issues and problems initially, however the Eastern front was a massive kill/ loss ratio on both sides - didnt Germany lose some 80% of all their WW2 causalities?.
I was kinda meaning more that while Barbarossa initially was very successful in the earlier stages - the switching of objectives, altering plans and splitting of various formations didn't help, nor efforts to secure or free up the Stalingrad objective as it became utterly bogged down and a sunk cost, with opposing follow-on operations by the Soviets (Uranus and Bagration) only serving to make the German's earlier successes untenable.
How different would have things been if Stalingrad was either completely captured in 42 - leading to a successful and total enveloping of a secure Caucasus region - and or the a successful advance on Moscow in the end of 41 before they ran out of time as Winter set in.
Stalingrad was of no consequence as it was destroyed, very low war effort and most civilians fled. Case blue saw the wehrmacht waste its time and efforts where it didn't matter. The red army was at moscow. They should of gone after those troops.
When Germany shifted priorities they knocked out Russian armies.
Ultimately this was the only way to defeat ussr as ussr propaganda blocked any attempt to defeat Russian will to fight and ussr was so vast, they could keep relocating their factories.
So the win condition was to kill or capture Russian men.
And oh they came so close.
By mid 1944 every single Russian was either in the army or dead. The only famine prevention and industrial collapse was lend lease.
By mid 1944 the wehrmacht was the same size as the red army but had reserves yet to tap.
The problem for Germany was two fold.
2 million men on other fronts abd all new troops going south and west.
The millions of potential red army recruits in the liberated territories.
This was why Germany had a hold and fight and not retreat. The historians who lambasted the order to hold dont know what they fuck they were talking about. Either Germany held in the east or they lost.
So as you know they slaughtered the red army in bagration but they territorial victories allowed them to conscript mllions more men and thereby won the war.
Ps the humble usa studebaker was the unsung hero of bagration. Half a million trucks gave a mobilty Germany could not match.
Wooh, i think you're getting a bit ahead of yourself. I never actually disagreed with anything your reply said.
I also mentioned in another reply in the thread about German would have been in a better overall situation had they successfully taken Moscow.
Yes, Stalingrad was destroyed however it became an unwinnable anchor around 6th army's neck and that entire theatre.
I don't even see myself as disagreeing with you but merely giving my humble opinion on how it all ended up.
Weird.
So as you know they slaughtered the red army in bagration but they territorial victories allowed them to conscript mllions more men and thereby won the war.
Sure - But Bagration was the beginning of the end with the sweeping clean up and rout of Germany's foray into russia after ripping apart Army group Center.
The war in Russian territory was won by Russian troops.
The eastern front was where the overwhelming number of Germany's WW2 kia/ losses and troop replacement occurred (something like 80% of all WW2 German military losses were on the eastern front - 8-10 million German/ Axis troops served in the East at one time or another. The vast bulk of All German replacements were being funneled into the eastern theatre.
And killed and captured more heer and ss troops than the red army.
No - most German kia was on the Eastern front by a huge amount - but yes more were captured or purposely surrendered to the West - because it were well known by German/ Axis troops that it was an almost automatic death sentence to be captured by the Soviets.
What is your exact defunct? I wasn't really disagreeing with you, only giving some contextual detail. However, Russian troops on the ground won the war in the east. No shit it couldnt have been done without the land lease, i already mentioned that elsewhere in this thread, but without the manpower no amount of war material would have made any difference.
So I guess you did fcking stutter - you should see someone for that.
Compare the current funding and 'land lease' to ukraine from NaTO and the US - no amount of material will help them win unless they have the manpower. Russia were able to secure the manpower - zero western allies fought on the Eastern front.
Yeah, leaving the British expeditionary forces at dunkirk was a huge strategic error. Also, leaving the entire Africa corp rather than evacuate them was another nail in the coffin.
I recall a memoir by leon Degrelle iirc and some other historians have also touched on it, if the Italians hadn't attempted their failed invasion of Greece and tied up German forces and resources saving their ass and then extra time having to combat insurgents afterwards, Barbarossa would have been able to begin several weeks (3 months ?? ) earlier and then German forces would have had the time to take (Edit) Moscow and not Stalingrad (and precluded /Russias ability to transfer their entire production base whole cloth into siberia), before that seasons Winter set in, the whole course of the war would have shifted away from Russia gaining their later momentum.
Plus i also believe the British had cracked more code than what we have been led to believe and basically the last couple of years of the war literally knew what Germany was doing before German forces on the ground did. I recall reading a novel back in the 80's i think, the premise was Alan Turing and some polish theoretical physicist working at Bletchley park had to apply the reading of German communications in such a way as to not let the Germans know the codes was broken- pretty interesting.
1. They opened a 2 front war by getting slowed down by their operations in Poland and Russia getting crushed by heavy winter weather, and German supply line troubles. Being stuck fighting both Russians in the East, and the Allied forces on the West made them fail.
2. The U.S. simply overwhelmed with production of fighters, bombers, and bombs. After the Germans lost air superiority, then the British and U.S. began carpet bombing their industrial-transportation infrastructure. It was only a matter of time after the couldn't defend from endless bombing.
Had the Germans prioritized the production of the Horton HO 229 fighter-bomber, then they could have absolutely ruled the skies, and saved Germany.
[ - ] glooper 1 point 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 17:46:45 ago (+1/-0)*
fun fact most don't know. Germany was about 6 months behind the US on developing a Nuke. They went with a slightly different tech, but in the end, they were right there.
That, coupled with the V2 and V3 dropping a bomb on New York and London, they would have won the war overnight. (the same way the US won)
If they had just held out a bit longer.
Lot o reason they lost. Lots blame the attack on russia, but the ruskies were going to attack regardless. But, never , ever, ever underestimate the russian winter. Also, no one ever expected, in a million and one years, that the russians would to dismantle their factories, part by part and move them to outer siberia to keep production up. The german plan called for taking the soviet factory cities (which they did) and then cutting off all soviet production. But... the ruiskies suprized the shit out of everyone with this move.
Production:
ALL wars are won by production. Full stop. The Germans over engineered (you could have built 3 panzers type 4's for the price of one super tiger) everything and frankly did not have the resources for a full industrial war.
Looking back, its simple to see, but back then it wasn't. They had the Kruppe valley that supplied them fully in ever war up till WWII with no problem.
Muther fucking Goering.
This dude.... everyone blames hitler for being a bad general, but he really wasn't. Methed out and out of control at the end for sure, but his strategic and even tactical planning was actually fairly good. Goering on the other hand. He made some seriously bad calls (while usually methed out and partying and cross dressing) with the airforce mid way into the war that fucked the cohesiveness of the german military.
IMHO, Germany should have just concentrated on building Germany. No invasions, no annexations. Just fix what they controlled and prepare like hell should war come to them. Having an Eastern Front was a bigger disaster than the Western Front. How about this: Leave France alone. Encourage trade with the west. Stay home and enjoy the peace and newfound prosperity.
My grandpa had like 350 books on the subject both written during and after from both sides, but none of them were quite as telling as Irvings 2 (now 3) books.
USA cut off Japans oil supply and tricked them into to bombing Pearl Harbor after they lined their navy fleet up as bait. That was the excuse they were looking for.
Says russians technically won but actually lost because they fell out of power afterwards.
Said on German's away game - it came down to that winter in Stalingrad then refusing to concede ground they once captured. Germany never had that many losses on the field.
After the Russians stopped the German offensive, the war could have ended, but FDR and Churchill established a policy of unconditional surrender, which kept the war going two more years.
On Germanys home game, having a superior ground army did not, and could not, make up for an insufficient air force.
Some people say they got lucky they didnt get Heroshima'd and Nagasaki'd.
But they basically did. They had 5 major cities get annihilated by bombings. Some bigger than our new york at the time. They would pass up military targets to instead hit citizens. Then they waited for rescue workers to come and would then bomb them again. But these numbers paled in comparison to the 5 million that died due to forced starvation.
Four+ times more Germans died after the surrender then during the entire war.
Terms of the surrender was to force Germany into teaching the holocaust lie and the rest of the revisionism that we are taught today. To the victor went the spoils.
There can be many valid answers. One of the things that would have completely changed things is if they would have advertised the progress Germany was making after WW2. They should have started Nazi movements across Europe, Britain, and the US.
Everyone else was in the Great Depression, while Nazi Germany was in an economic miracle.
Nazi ideals would have spread across the Western world. Everyone would have aligned with Nazi Germany.
That was their largest mistake by far. Not trying to take over other countries politically from the inside.
Germany like many civilizations before it attempted to invade Russia going into winter and lost more souls to the brutal winter and logistical failures that come with it than Russia could ever murder on its own.
That was Mussolini's fuckup. He promised Hitler not to invade Greece, but then he did. Hitler had to detour German troops and materiel to Greece, and ultimately prevail, to bail Italy out (they were shit). This set the invasion of Russia back many weeks, and led to the Russian winter disaster. Many historians believe Hitler could have won in Russia, if not for Mussolini fuckin shit up.
He still chose to push into Russia instead of just fortifying up and holding the Russians in place. Stalemating till he could slog through the mud and bullshit in the spring with better support.
Built two stupid battle ships instead of a lot of aircraft carriers to send in their superior air force... I play axis and allies if you replace the battle ships with carrier task forc3 type navy things go alot better...
On strategy is don't spend money play defense next round buy air craft carriers... it works kinda not that this is a simulation but it shows that even in a board game it makes a difference.
Hitler was a socialist, the NSDAP were socialists, and it all comes with the fallacies of socialism and inevitable failure. The fact that the revered social group was defined racially as Aryans is admirable, but it was still socialism and therefore doomed.
Specifically, the socialist economic policies were unsustainable as usual, but Hitler failed to recognise that and instead was convinced the problem was lack of Lebensraum for the people. Conquest did enrich Germany, but only due to plundering, which was unsustainable of course.
Nations generally can't support both war and socialism simultaneously.
Operation Himmler also called Operation Konserve or Operation Canned Goods, consisted of a group of 1939 false flag ops planned by Nazi Germany to give the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, the Germans then used propaganda reports of the events to justify their invasion of Poland.
Thus in his September 1, 1939 speech to the Reichstag announcing war, Hitler cited 21 border incidents as justification for Germany's "defensive action" against Poland. The Hitlerites knew full well treaty obligations penned by Jews who had infiltrated the political establishments of both countries, would bring England and France into the fray in response to the German invasion.
Adolf Hitler who was already at war with Britain, France and Russia arbitrarily declared war on the United States Dec. 11, 1941, following President Roosevelt's Declaration of War on Japan three days earlier in response to the False Flag Pearl Harbor attacks. After having declared war on France & England June 10, 1940, Benito Mussolini declared war on America on behalf of Italy on the same day as Hitler.
Germany's biggest mistake was trying to make allies. Their "friends" were their downfall. American government leadership used the Japanese as an excuse to go hard at Europe. Plus the Italians consumed more resources than they were worth. Hitler's biggest mistake was being to kind and not taking the war serious. He wanted to be a diplomat that negotiated peace. If he had let his generals wipeout the English at Dunkirk, it would have devastated their military. If he had gassed and burned the kikes, it would have freed up resources for the military. If he had sent the Panzers to the beaches it would have drastically changed D-day.
[ + ] lord_nougat
[ - ] lord_nougat 17 points 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 15:42:38 ago (+17/-0)
[ + ] Rob3122
[ - ] Rob3122 3 points 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 17:35:42 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] Belfuro
[ - ] Belfuro 0 points 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 20:13:38 ago (+0/-0)
France 1791
Usa 1776
Russia 1917
Germany 1945
[ + ] Doglegwarrior
[ - ] Doglegwarrior 1 point 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 19:52:32 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Belfuro
[ - ] Belfuro 1 point 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 20:11:53 ago (+2/-1)
When Germany raised up in revolt the initial judeo-satanists plan to recapture Germans was to use Poland.
This is why Poland had an army the same dize as Germanys. Funded by other goyim slave states. (Parallels with Ukraine today).
Poland mobilized in March 1939 which began the clock for war.
But Germany crushed Poland and Stalin went awol from under their control being a nationalist bolshevik leader as opposed to the desired globslist trotsky.
Ok so plan b. Mobilize France and Uk.
Should of been enough.
Plus by thus time usa was in a cold war vs Germany too.
Wasn't enough as France was crushed.
So a plan was concocted to turn 100% isolationist usa into 100% jingoistic
A 911 in 1941.
Germany was defeating USSR.
But usa on top was too much for them.
Plus don't doubt for a second that satan (probably an alien anunnaki of the enlil faction) fed the allies advanced war winning tech. Computers, intelligence, magnetron, nukes)
This is why at key battles where luck was claimed as the excuse, allies won.
I think Germany scared our hidden alien overlords.
I think that was ultimately the reason why they decided to exterminate whites. We are too dangerous.
In short. A Germany twice the size would of won. 80million rebels was not enough and the other axis powers were pretty shit.
[ + ] Crackinjokes
[ - ] Crackinjokes [op] 1 point 2 monthsApr 2, 2025 11:24:58 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Tallest_Skil
[ - ] Tallest_Skil 5 points 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 15:45:37 ago (+5/-0)
The entire world was unified against them. They didn’t really have a chance, since the war was declared ON them.
The US illegally sent infinite supplies to the USSR before we were even in the war. FDR conspired with Churchill to purposely get the US into the war afterward. The UK government was told by jews not to surrender in exchange for waiting for America to join, just like the First World War. There just really wasn’t any hope.
If you want to talk about specific things Germany could have done to sort of upset this, capturing the British at Dunkirk and forcing them into peace in exchange for the hostages might have helped a little, but likely not much. With war inevitably being declared later against the USSR, the UK would have instantly jumped back in to fight Germany in defense of communism.
He was fine. His generals disobeyed him and lied to him about it, particularly when he was laid up with illness.
[ + ] Sector2
[ - ] Sector2 7 points 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 15:47:03 ago (+7/-0)
[ + ] dassar
[ - ] dassar 6 points 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 17:12:05 ago (+6/-0)
But i think taking on the Soviets was a given and had to be done - Stalin was always going to attack and backstab Germany.
[ + ] Sector2
[ - ] Sector2 2 points 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 17:19:54 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] dassar
[ - ] dassar 1 point 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 17:22:47 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] beece
[ - ] beece 2 points 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 17:43:52 ago (+2/-0)
Reference history books:
"Operation Snow" - by John Koster
and
"The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II"
by Viktor Suvorov
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/chief-culprit-stalins-grand-design-to-start-world-war-ii
[ + ] Belfuro
[ - ] Belfuro 0 points 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 20:16:18 ago (+0/-0)
Barbarossa was not a cause for the defeat. It was a huge success.
Fun fact, operation citedal smashed the ussr.
Huge kill loss ratio.
[ + ] dassar
[ - ] dassar 1 point 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 21:21:35 ago (+1/-0)
Yea sure, Russia had huge issues and problems initially, however the Eastern front was a massive kill/ loss ratio on both sides - didnt Germany lose some 80% of all their WW2 causalities?.
I was kinda meaning more that while Barbarossa initially was very successful in the earlier stages - the switching of objectives, altering plans and splitting of various formations didn't help, nor efforts to secure or free up the Stalingrad objective as it became utterly bogged down and a sunk cost, with opposing follow-on operations by the Soviets (Uranus and Bagration) only serving to make the German's earlier successes untenable.
How different would have things been if Stalingrad was either completely captured in 42 - leading to a successful and total enveloping of a secure Caucasus region - and or the a successful advance on Moscow in the end of 41 before they ran out of time as Winter set in.
[ + ] Belfuro
[ - ] Belfuro 0 points 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 23:51:36 ago (+0/-0)
Stalingrad was of no consequence as it was destroyed, very low war effort and most civilians fled. Case blue saw the wehrmacht waste its time and efforts where it didn't matter.
The red army was at moscow. They should of gone after those troops.
When Germany shifted priorities they knocked out Russian armies.
Ultimately this was the only way to defeat ussr as ussr propaganda blocked any attempt to defeat Russian will to fight and ussr was so vast, they could keep relocating their factories.
So the win condition was to kill or capture Russian men.
And oh they came so close.
By mid 1944 every single Russian was either in the army or dead.
The only famine prevention and industrial collapse was lend lease.
By mid 1944 the wehrmacht was the same size as the red army but had reserves yet to tap.
The problem for Germany was two fold.
2 million men on other fronts abd all new troops going south and west.
The millions of potential red army recruits in the liberated territories.
This was why Germany had a hold and fight and not retreat.
The historians who lambasted the order to hold dont know what they fuck they were talking about.
Either Germany held in the east or they lost.
So as you know they slaughtered the red army in bagration but they territorial victories allowed them to conscript mllions more men and thereby won the war.
Ps the humble usa studebaker was the unsung hero of bagration. Half a million trucks gave a mobilty Germany could not match.
Rip.
[ + ] dassar
[ - ] dassar 0 points 2 monthsMar 30, 2025 03:32:27 ago (+0/-0)*
Wooh, i think you're getting a bit ahead of yourself.
I never actually disagreed with anything your reply said.
I also mentioned in another reply in the thread about German would have been in a better overall situation had they successfully taken Moscow.
Yes, Stalingrad was destroyed however it became an unwinnable anchor around 6th army's neck and that entire theatre.
I don't even see myself as disagreeing with you but merely giving my humble opinion on how it all ended up.
Weird.
Sure - But Bagration was the beginning of the end with the sweeping clean up and rout of Germany's foray into russia after ripping apart Army group Center.
[ + ] Belfuro
[ - ] Belfuro 0 points 2 monthsMar 30, 2025 00:19:39 ago (+0/-0)
The war vs. Germany was won by the allies not ussr. The contrary is one of those popular lies.
The allies:
Destroyed the entirety of the kriegsmarine.
90% of the luftwaffe.
And killed and captured more heer and ss troops than the red army.
[ + ] dassar
[ - ] dassar -1 points 2 monthsMar 30, 2025 03:35:56 ago (+0/-1)*
The war in Russian territory was won by Russian troops.
The eastern front was where the overwhelming number of Germany's WW2 kia/ losses and troop replacement occurred (something like 80% of all WW2 German military losses were on the eastern front - 8-10 million German/ Axis troops served in the East at one time or another. The vast bulk of All German replacements were being funneled into the eastern theatre.
No - most German kia was on the Eastern front by a huge amount - but yes more were captured or purposely surrendered to the West - because it were well known by German/ Axis troops that it was an almost automatic death sentence to be captured by the Soviets.
[ + ] Belfuro
[ - ] Belfuro 0 points 2 monthsMar 30, 2025 04:17:18 ago (+0/-0)
Allies destroyed more of the German forces than ussr did.
Not to mention that the vastness of lend lease was one way...
Please don't quote official judeo-satanist propaganda to me.
[ + ] dassar
[ - ] dassar 0 points 2 monthsMar 30, 2025 04:32:58 ago (+0/-0)*
I wasn't really disagreeing with you, only giving some contextual detail.
However, Russian troops on the ground won the war in the east.
No shit it couldnt have been done without the land lease, i already mentioned that elsewhere in this thread, but without the manpower no amount of war material would have made any difference.
So I guess you did fcking stutter - you should see someone for that.
Compare the current funding and 'land lease' to ukraine from NaTO and the US - no amount of material will help them win unless they have the manpower. Russia were able to secure the manpower - zero western allies fought on the Eastern front.
Get your head fixed you're sperging over nothing.
[ + ] Ducktalesooo000ooo
[ - ] Ducktalesooo000ooo 1 point 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 15:48:15 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] the_old_ones
[ - ] the_old_ones 0 points 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 16:15:17 ago (+1/-1)
this would have freed up planes, men and manpower for the soviets and other battles, even at the cost of it being a fucking meatgrinder.
[ + ] dassar
[ - ] dassar 3 points 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 17:03:21 ago (+3/-0)*
Also, leaving the entire Africa corp rather than evacuate them was another nail in the coffin.
I recall a memoir by leon Degrelle iirc and some other historians have also touched on it, if the Italians hadn't attempted their failed invasion of Greece and tied up German forces and resources saving their ass and then extra time having to combat insurgents afterwards, Barbarossa would have been able to begin several weeks (3 months ?? ) earlier and then German forces would have had the time to take (Edit) Moscow and not Stalingrad (and precluded /Russias ability to transfer their entire production base whole cloth into siberia), before that seasons Winter set in, the whole course of the war would have shifted away from Russia gaining their later momentum.
Plus i also believe the British had cracked more code than what we have been led to believe and basically the last couple of years of the war literally knew what Germany was doing before German forces on the ground did.
I recall reading a novel back in the 80's i think, the premise was Alan Turing and some polish theoretical physicist working at Bletchley park had to apply the reading of German communications in such a way as to not let the Germans know the codes was broken- pretty interesting.
[ + ] KosherHiveKicker
[ - ] KosherHiveKicker 1 point 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 16:52:24 ago (+1/-0)
1. They opened a 2 front war by getting slowed down by their operations in Poland and Russia getting crushed by heavy winter weather, and German supply line troubles. Being stuck fighting both Russians in the East, and the Allied forces on the West made them fail.
2. The U.S. simply overwhelmed with production of fighters, bombers, and bombs. After the Germans lost air superiority, then the British and U.S. began carpet bombing their industrial-transportation infrastructure. It was only a matter of time after the couldn't defend from endless bombing.
Had the Germans prioritized the production of the Horton HO 229 fighter-bomber, then they could have absolutely ruled the skies, and saved Germany.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229
[ + ] dassar
[ - ] dassar 2 points 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 17:04:59 ago (+2/-0)*
There was kinda no real way around it - diplomatically or politically.
EDIT: Yes, the Horton and the ME262 were both leaps ahead.
[ + ] glooper
[ - ] glooper 1 point 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 17:46:45 ago (+1/-0)*
Germany was about 6 months behind the US on developing a Nuke. They went with a slightly different tech, but in the end, they were right there.
That, coupled with the V2 and V3 dropping a bomb on New York and London, they would have won the war overnight. (the same way the US won)
If they had just held out a bit longer.
Lot o reason they lost.
Lots blame the attack on russia, but the ruskies were going to attack regardless. But, never , ever, ever underestimate the russian winter. Also, no one ever expected, in a million and one years, that the russians would to dismantle their factories, part by part and move them to outer siberia to keep production up. The german plan called for taking the soviet factory cities (which they did) and then cutting off all soviet production. But... the ruiskies suprized the shit out of everyone with this move.
Production:
ALL wars are won by production. Full stop.
The Germans over engineered (you could have built 3 panzers type 4's for the price of one super tiger) everything and frankly did not have the resources for a full industrial war.
Looking back, its simple to see, but back then it wasn't. They had the Kruppe valley that supplied them fully in ever war up till WWII with no problem.
Muther fucking Goering.
This dude.... everyone blames hitler for being a bad general, but he really wasn't. Methed out and out of control at the end for sure, but his strategic and even tactical planning was actually fairly good.
Goering on the other hand.
He made some seriously bad calls (while usually methed out and partying and cross dressing) with the airforce mid way into the war that fucked the cohesiveness of the german military.
Lose air superiority, lose the war, full stop.
[ + ] dassar
[ - ] dassar 0 points 2 monthsMar 30, 2025 03:37:28 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Panic
[ - ] Panic 0 points 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 17:59:24 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 1 point 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 20:14:46 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] MeyerLansky
[ - ] MeyerLansky -1 points 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 18:28:07 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 2 points 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 18:58:39 ago (+2/-0)
USA cut off Japans oil supply and tricked them into to bombing Pearl Harbor after they lined their navy fleet up as bait. That was the excuse they were looking for.
Says russians technically won but actually lost because they fell out of power afterwards.
Said on German's away game - it came down to that winter in Stalingrad then refusing to concede ground they once captured. Germany never had that many losses on the field.
After the Russians stopped the German offensive, the war could have ended, but FDR and Churchill established a policy of unconditional surrender, which kept the war going two more years.
On Germanys home game, having a superior ground army did not, and could not, make up for an insufficient air force.
Some people say they got lucky they didnt get Heroshima'd and Nagasaki'd.
But they basically did. They had 5 major cities get annihilated by bombings. Some bigger than our new york at the time. They would pass up military targets to instead hit citizens. Then they waited for rescue workers to come and would then bomb them again. But these numbers paled in comparison to the 5 million that died due to forced starvation.
Four+ times more Germans died after the surrender then during the entire war.
Terms of the surrender was to force Germany into teaching the holocaust lie and the rest of the revisionism that we are taught today. To the victor went the spoils.
[ + ] Not_C
[ - ] Not_C 0 points 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 19:42:36 ago (+0/-0)
One of the things that would have completely changed things is if they would have advertised the progress Germany was making after WW2.
They should have started Nazi movements across Europe, Britain, and the US.
Everyone else was in the Great Depression, while Nazi Germany was in an economic miracle.
Nazi ideals would have spread across the Western world. Everyone would have aligned with Nazi Germany.
That was their largest mistake by far.
Not trying to take over other countries politically from the inside.
[ + ] lolxd
[ - ] lolxd 0 points 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 19:49:31 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Anus_Expander
[ - ] Anus_Expander 1 point 2 monthsMar 30, 2025 09:07:41 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] dassar
[ - ] dassar 0 points 2 monthsMar 30, 2025 15:05:00 ago (+0/-0)
So pissed - we all could be speaking german.
[ + ] lolxd
[ - ] lolxd 0 points 2 monthsMar 30, 2025 16:12:21 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Anus_Expander
[ - ] Anus_Expander 0 points 2 monthsMar 30, 2025 16:46:14 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Doglegwarrior
[ - ] Doglegwarrior 0 points 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 19:52:24 ago (+0/-0)
On strategy is don't spend money play defense next round buy air craft carriers... it works kinda not that this is a simulation but it shows that even in a board game it makes a difference.
[ + ] registereduser
[ - ] registereduser 0 points 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 20:06:45 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Stonkmar
[ - ] Stonkmar 0 points 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 20:29:31 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] SithEmpire
[ - ] SithEmpire 1 point 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 20:37:31 ago (+1/-0)
Hitler was a socialist, the NSDAP were socialists, and it all comes with the fallacies of socialism and inevitable failure. The fact that the revered social group was defined racially as Aryans is admirable, but it was still socialism and therefore doomed.
Specifically, the socialist economic policies were unsustainable as usual, but Hitler failed to recognise that and instead was convinced the problem was lack of Lebensraum for the people. Conquest did enrich Germany, but only due to plundering, which was unsustainable of course.
Nations generally can't support both war and socialism simultaneously.
[ + ] MartinTimothy
[ - ] MartinTimothy -1 points 2 monthsMar 29, 2025 23:55:15 ago (+0/-1)*
https://i.postimg.cc/85RPHsJQ/images-5.jpg
Thus in his September 1, 1939 speech to the Reichstag announcing war, Hitler cited 21 border incidents as justification for Germany's "defensive action" against Poland. The Hitlerites knew full well treaty obligations penned by Jews who had infiltrated the political establishments of both countries, would bring England and France into the fray in response to the German invasion.
Adolf Hitler who was already at war with Britain, France and Russia arbitrarily declared war on the United States Dec. 11, 1941, following President Roosevelt's Declaration of War on Japan three days earlier in response to the False Flag Pearl Harbor attacks. After having declared war on France & England June 10, 1940, Benito Mussolini declared war on America on behalf of Italy on the same day as Hitler.
Thus between the two of them they provided the impetus for massive US and British bombing thence ground warfare, which guaranteed Germany and Italy would be the losers in WW2. US & British Forces Invade Italy 1943.
[ + ] dassar
[ - ] dassar 0 points 2 monthsMar 30, 2025 03:49:46 ago (+0/-0)
Where's your usual 'they were all jews' nonsense.
[ + ] xmasskull
[ - ] xmasskull 0 points 2 monthsMar 30, 2025 01:50:55 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] albatrosv15
[ - ] albatrosv15 0 points 2 monthsMar 30, 2025 02:06:19 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] StealthNinjaTaliban
[ - ] StealthNinjaTaliban 0 points 2 monthsMar 30, 2025 02:19:41 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Anus_Expander
[ - ] Anus_Expander 0 points 2 monthsMar 30, 2025 09:00:16 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] ItsOk2bArian
[ - ] ItsOk2bArian 0 points 2 monthsMar 30, 2025 16:02:25 ago (+0/-0)
Hitler's biggest mistake was being to kind and not taking the war serious. He wanted to be a diplomat that negotiated peace.
If he had let his generals wipeout the English at Dunkirk, it would have devastated their military.
If he had gassed and burned the kikes, it would have freed up resources for the military.
If he had sent the Panzers to the beaches it would have drastically changed D-day.