He had to do something. Hitting the USSR in 1941 at a time when the Red Army was in a poor condition would be better than waiting for it to get its shit together.
Breaking all of his treaties so flagrantly. It killed any degree of trust he could have in the international order, meaning any military conflict was going to be total; and he doesn't have the resources to win a total war like that.
well he would have but americans allowed japan to bomb pearl harbor which let the americans join, and forced hitlers hand. there was a point where america would have been perfectly content to remain isolated. america effectively stopped nazi spies from infiltrating, and blocked every attempt by the nazis to embargo them. germans arent good seafarers.
>when not if
no it wasnt. still dependent on their leaders decisions and they just as well could have remained isolationist. dont be moronic
2 years ago
Anonymous
Except the leaders were for it and the public was for intervention; a trend that had been unidirectional since around the time France fell. Go look up contemporary polling, the trend is unmistakable as you go from 1940 to 1941. And by the summer of 1941 you have considerable majorities to questions like
>Should the United States take steps now to keep Japan from becoming more powerful, even if it means risking a war with Japan?
(70% yes, 18% no, 12% undecided)
>Which of these two things do you think is the more important — that this country keep out of war or that Germany be defeated?
(70-30 split in favor of war)
http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup%201941.htm
2 years ago
Anonymous
one sabotage or botched operation could have had americans backsliding into isolation. one effective isolationist policy maker could have kept america to itself. you say theres absoutely no reality they could have remained isolationist, but thats simply not true.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>one sabotage or botched operation could have had americans backsliding into isolation
Anon, you fapping to the thought of a victorious Nazi Germany doesn't actually make your alt-his presuppositions true.
> you say theres absoutely no reality they could have remained isolationist, but thats simply not true.
That is not what I said you idiot. I said that Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor did not create the trend, it simply accelerated it. If you want a reality where the U.S. stays out of WW2, you need to go way further back. Furthermore, the notion that America joining "forced Hitler's hand" is simply wrong; he was in a total war with two other major powers even before that, and had done his whole diplomatic bridge burning years before that.
Americans were donating war material hand over fist since the very first days of the war. This cope about "they never would have joined!!!" is just that: cope. It's founded on the perception that the US never wanted to be a part on WW1, which simply just wasn't true either, and discards complex political climates that caused things to happen how they did.
There is never a world where the US stayed out of WW2 unless a MASSIVE and uprecedented political shift occured.
is never a world where the US stayed out of WW2
there definitely are, and there were good reasons to have thought america would fail, since they were untested and even the germans considered them underdeveloped and technologically backwards. there were also nazi movements in the usa that could have destabilized american participation.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Everything you listed is just wishful thinking that has no understanding of political inertia. The US was always going to join WW2, even if it was later than it did in reality. And Germany was always going to lose that fight, if only because they had fewer men, fewer factories, and less oil.
Armchair historians that ignore the basic facts that WW2 Germany had endemic manpower and fuel shortage issues even before Barbarossa shouldn't be allowed to speak.
Not stopping after the Sudentenland. If he had sat pretty and began shifting away from re-militarization the worse that would have happened is economic woes, which was survivable.
no it wouldnt have. germanys debts to its own people were crippling. if they stopped they would have lost momentum and be unable to pay their citizens which would make them grumble at work. germany had to keep the ball rolling or they wouldnt have been able to keep the promises they made, and the momentum lost would have meant a stagnated germany that wouldnt be able to further their empire for the next 3 generations.
Stalin was a b***h boy who wouldn't have done jack shit without Hitler giving him the green light. The jumped-up Georgian was terrified spooking the western powers into allying against him.
Thinking that war with the Anglos would be a gentleman's war where conditional peace was an option, rather than an unconditional total war like what was happening on the Eastern Front. He truly believed he could just dominate the continent and split the world with Britain and that they would be fine treating the Germans as peers. The same mistake that Napoleon made. He never realized that the West was not anti-communist, like the fascists, but rather they were anti-anti-communists.
Making the immediate destruction of Judeo-Bolshevism his priority. It sort of set him up on a path to inevitable war that he never stood a chance of winning.
He would have needed to start such a fight in the 60s with more allies than he had.
His biggest mistake? It was losing, plain and simple. That's why the winners (various agents) wrote the history in a certain way to make him look stupid.
I’m gonna buck the trend and say his biggest win could have been if he managed to encircle and capture all the dunkirk soldiers and then used them as bargaining chip for peace with Britain.
I can't think of a single time that a belligerent tapped out of a war in order to secure the release of an expeditionary force that was captured.
Even if you assume that capture of the BEF is doable (I have my doubts), why on earth do you think this is actually a bargaining chip for peace with Britain?
It was too many people and the offer would be very tempting and very popular at home because Britain wasn’t prepared for war yet. Perhaps concessions would also be necessary but I think it could have brought them to the table, which is half the job
>It was too many people and the offer would be very tempting and very popular at home
[citation badly needed] >because Britain wasn’t prepared for war yet
Are you high? British war production in 1940 exceeded Germany's. If they weren't prepared, what exactly does count as prepared?
And how do you solve the fundamental trust issue? Hitler has gone back on his word many times in the past, including breaking bilateral treaties with Britain itself like the Anglo-German naval agreement.
>why on earth do you think this is actually a bargaining chip for peace with Britain?
because it would set parents against the government and harm the relation between the government and its people.
[...]
germany could have captured several oil sources. why didnt they? hitlers blind spots probably.
the usa was not going to join the war in the unequivocal absolute 100% of scenarios and to say so is moronic troony tier bullshit. stop copying shitty rhetoric you got from youtube.
>because it would set parents against the government and harm the relation between the government and its people.
Again, [citation needed]. This is wish fulfillment, not serious contemplation. Again, when has "I've got thousands or even hundreds of thousands of PoWs, so you must surrender to get them back" EVER worked?
Also, while not direcly reposning to me
>germany could have captured several oil sources. why didnt they? hitlers blind spots probably.
And there's the fact that they were all literally thousands of kilometers further along axes of advance than the German efforts ever got.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I agree that citation needed. I’m not offering it as a sure thing. I’m suggesting it as a nonstandard perspective about the war. I think it would work.
If you want an example, israel encircling the Egyptian military in the yin kipper war, when they sued for truce. It’s not 1 to 1 but it’s an example.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I have to admit I don't know the Yom Kippur war nearly as well as I know WW2, but i'm not convinced it was the plight of the Third Army that brought Egypt to the peace table so much as it was Operation Gazelle having the Israelis cross the Suez Canal and be in a position to directly threaten Cairo.
You don't have that kind of parallel to the German threat to the UK, even if the BEF is captured to a man.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It was widely considered to be the third army’s encirclement that did it, but like I said it’s not one to one. Although this would leave Hitler across the channel, in much the same position, capable of threatening London (at least in minds of ordinary britishers, obvs he never really could)
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes, but in one case, the encirclement of the army leaves the country in imminent threat of being overrun, and the other it doesn't. And this is in the minds of policy elites, not Joe Public. I'm not sure how much the opinion of ordinary British citizens affects the perception of threat here, and I'm not sure how much the loss of the BEF would be in that calculation in any case. Egypt, on the other hand, is much more immediately at risk of Israeli tanks parading through their capitol, and I suspect that the chain of logic of whatever elements of the Egyptian govenrment that decided to peace out was more along the lines of
>Shit, we lost the army. We've got this huge hole in our lines. The Israelis can end run and oh Allah, they might occupy the whole country
And not >Shit, we lost the army. What will happen to our soldiers taking up residence in PoW camps?
When the latter is certainly how I interpreted (possibly erroneously)
I’m gonna buck the trend and say his biggest win could have been if he managed to encircle and capture all the dunkirk soldiers and then used them as bargaining chip for peace with Britain.
with the whole "use them as a bargaining chip" bit.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I’m not sure either and it’s not one to one. But I think it would very likely have brought the Brits to the bargaining table, and from there anything could happen, in my opinion
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Hitler's blind spots
Confirmed moron that doesn't actually read. Hitler was the one fighting with his commanders to try and make them head south to capture the oil fields in the Caucasus. They're the ones who insisted on going for major cities to "secure a surrender".
thanks for the free knowledge, i hope i can exploit you again in the future, tool
It would have been bad for morale, sure, but it's disingenuous to say that Britain would have tapped out of the war after how much they were bombed by one of their oldest enemies. Every future battle would have happened, it just would have been Americans fighting instead of Brits.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I think it might have cooled the passions if he showed true desire to come to the table.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No. You have to realize that politics is an incredibly petty business. Especially politics between Britain, France, and Germany. They have histories spanning centuries. They've never liked each other. They waged multiple wars to pull whichever crab was climbing out of the bucket back down. Britain and France would have rather burned to the ground than quietly accept German hegemony, especially with the US's support.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I disagree. It’s not clear they wouldn’t come to the table.
>why on earth do you think this is actually a bargaining chip for peace with Britain?
because it would set parents against the government and harm the relation between the government and its people.
Everything you listed is just wishful thinking that has no understanding of political inertia. The US was always going to join WW2, even if it was later than it did in reality. And Germany was always going to lose that fight, if only because they had fewer men, fewer factories, and less oil.
Armchair historians that ignore the basic facts that WW2 Germany had endemic manpower and fuel shortage issues even before Barbarossa shouldn't be allowed to speak.
germany could have captured several oil sources. why didnt they? hitlers blind spots probably.
the usa was not going to join the war in the unequivocal absolute 100% of scenarios and to say so is moronic troony tier bullshit. stop copying shitty rhetoric you got from youtube.
Confirmed moron that doesn't actually read. Hitler was the one fighting with his commanders to try and make them head south to capture the oil fields in the Caucasus. They're the ones who insisted on going for major cities to "secure a surrender".
Hitlers big mistake was the same that consumed most other great men before him. He saw the vision of the over-man as one who sheds sins and weaknesses and becomes something greater, but he made the classic mistake of neglecting to deal with mans sins which give an aura of pride and strength that oft blind men to the terrible weaknesses hidden below the surface. that sinful pride and "strength" were ultimately his undoing, leading him and his people down a path of destruction.
TLDR: he embraced the likes of nietzsche instead of embracing Christ like he should have, and it was ultimately his undoing
Ransoming Louise de Rothschild in 1942.
Sparing the lives of israelites in Germany.
Sparing the British Army.
Sparing Britain.
Not using chemical and biological weapons.
Sparing enemy civillains.
Cooperating with bolsheviks.
Remember, mercy to your enemy is cruelty to your volk.
Hitler spoke extensively and openly about how great the English people were, that they were a shining example of Germanic superiority; the Anglo-Saxon race who went on to conquer the world and subjugated all lesser races. He went to incessant lengths to try and build a good relationship with Great Britain right up until the moment when it became clear it wasn't going to work out and that any attempts to further push this would be detrimental to his goals. It's a testament to British wartime propaganda that people think he was not keen on the English.
He wanted Germany's Army to be the continental equivalent to Britain's Navy.
He believed the BS hype that the UK was strong or ruled the waves.
He believed the bs of mercantalism: that Germany was behind because it built trains for its' own people instead of streetshitters (the opposite's true).
The British were his most-wanted ally. He even had his top guy fly over to meet with their royalty.
As israelitecentric as golems perceive Hitler's worldview to be, he mistakenly conceived of the US, UK, and France as independent actors rather than one israelite collective.
well, he failed so hard that the only people who worship him are people who lose their jobs and neckbeard incels on the internet. at least commies have hot girls who larp so you can get some pussy
Russia
No physical evidence for battle of Stalingrad
He had to do something. Hitting the USSR in 1941 at a time when the Red Army was in a poor condition would be better than waiting for it to get its shit together.
Breaking all of his treaties so flagrantly. It killed any degree of trust he could have in the international order, meaning any military conflict was going to be total; and he doesn't have the resources to win a total war like that.
well he would have but americans allowed japan to bomb pearl harbor which let the americans join, and forced hitlers hand. there was a point where america would have been perfectly content to remain isolated. america effectively stopped nazi spies from infiltrating, and blocked every attempt by the nazis to embargo them. germans arent good seafarers.
He had already plunged into the total war victory or death setup years before Pearl Harbor you nitwit.
Also, American attitudes towards the war were pretty positive in the join direction by August 1941. The question was when, not if at that point.
>when not if
no it wasnt. still dependent on their leaders decisions and they just as well could have remained isolationist. dont be moronic
Except the leaders were for it and the public was for intervention; a trend that had been unidirectional since around the time France fell. Go look up contemporary polling, the trend is unmistakable as you go from 1940 to 1941. And by the summer of 1941 you have considerable majorities to questions like
>Should the United States take steps now to keep Japan from becoming more powerful, even if it means risking a war with Japan?
(70% yes, 18% no, 12% undecided)
>Which of these two things do you think is the more important — that this country keep out of war or that Germany be defeated?
(70-30 split in favor of war)
http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup%201941.htm
one sabotage or botched operation could have had americans backsliding into isolation. one effective isolationist policy maker could have kept america to itself. you say theres absoutely no reality they could have remained isolationist, but thats simply not true.
>one sabotage or botched operation could have had americans backsliding into isolation
Anon, you fapping to the thought of a victorious Nazi Germany doesn't actually make your alt-his presuppositions true.
> you say theres absoutely no reality they could have remained isolationist, but thats simply not true.
That is not what I said you idiot. I said that Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor did not create the trend, it simply accelerated it. If you want a reality where the U.S. stays out of WW2, you need to go way further back. Furthermore, the notion that America joining "forced Hitler's hand" is simply wrong; he was in a total war with two other major powers even before that, and had done his whole diplomatic bridge burning years before that.
no absolutely not
Americans were donating war material hand over fist since the very first days of the war. This cope about "they never would have joined!!!" is just that: cope. It's founded on the perception that the US never wanted to be a part on WW1, which simply just wasn't true either, and discards complex political climates that caused things to happen how they did.
There is never a world where the US stayed out of WW2 unless a MASSIVE and uprecedented political shift occured.
is never a world where the US stayed out of WW2
there definitely are, and there were good reasons to have thought america would fail, since they were untested and even the germans considered them underdeveloped and technologically backwards. there were also nazi movements in the usa that could have destabilized american participation.
Everything you listed is just wishful thinking that has no understanding of political inertia. The US was always going to join WW2, even if it was later than it did in reality. And Germany was always going to lose that fight, if only because they had fewer men, fewer factories, and less oil.
Armchair historians that ignore the basic facts that WW2 Germany had endemic manpower and fuel shortage issues even before Barbarossa shouldn't be allowed to speak.
Hitler should have just let Japan eat shit, if they weren't going to help versus the USSR they were of no use.
are you moronic
they kept half of americas navy off germanys back
Not stopping after the Sudentenland. If he had sat pretty and began shifting away from re-militarization the worse that would have happened is economic woes, which was survivable.
This, he was a complete moron for starting a world war against literally everybody else.
no it wouldnt have. germanys debts to its own people were crippling. if they stopped they would have lost momentum and be unable to pay their citizens which would make them grumble at work. germany had to keep the ball rolling or they wouldnt have been able to keep the promises they made, and the momentum lost would have meant a stagnated germany that wouldnt be able to further their empire for the next 3 generations.
>If he had sat pretty and began shifting away from re-militarization
With Stalin only one country away? Fat fricking chance.
Stalin was a b***h boy who wouldn't have done jack shit without Hitler giving him the green light. The jumped-up Georgian was terrified spooking the western powers into allying against him.
Being a Nazi.
Barbarossa of course
Thinking that war with the Anglos would be a gentleman's war where conditional peace was an option, rather than an unconditional total war like what was happening on the Eastern Front. He truly believed he could just dominate the continent and split the world with Britain and that they would be fine treating the Germans as peers. The same mistake that Napoleon made. He never realized that the West was not anti-communist, like the fascists, but rather they were anti-anti-communists.
Making the immediate destruction of Judeo-Bolshevism his priority. It sort of set him up on a path to inevitable war that he never stood a chance of winning.
He would have needed to start such a fight in the 60s with more allies than he had.
Killing poor israelites in ghettos while letting rich israelites like Rotschild go free
His biggest mistake? It was losing, plain and simple. That's why the winners (various agents) wrote the history in a certain way to make him look stupid.
Well if he wasn’t stupid why did he lose?
I’m gonna buck the trend and say his biggest win could have been if he managed to encircle and capture all the dunkirk soldiers and then used them as bargaining chip for peace with Britain.
I can't think of a single time that a belligerent tapped out of a war in order to secure the release of an expeditionary force that was captured.
Even if you assume that capture of the BEF is doable (I have my doubts), why on earth do you think this is actually a bargaining chip for peace with Britain?
It was too many people and the offer would be very tempting and very popular at home because Britain wasn’t prepared for war yet. Perhaps concessions would also be necessary but I think it could have brought them to the table, which is half the job
>It was too many people and the offer would be very tempting and very popular at home
[citation badly needed]
>because Britain wasn’t prepared for war yet
Are you high? British war production in 1940 exceeded Germany's. If they weren't prepared, what exactly does count as prepared?
And how do you solve the fundamental trust issue? Hitler has gone back on his word many times in the past, including breaking bilateral treaties with Britain itself like the Anglo-German naval agreement.
>because it would set parents against the government and harm the relation between the government and its people.
Again, [citation needed]. This is wish fulfillment, not serious contemplation. Again, when has "I've got thousands or even hundreds of thousands of PoWs, so you must surrender to get them back" EVER worked?
Also, while not direcly reposning to me
>germany could have captured several oil sources. why didnt they? hitlers blind spots probably.
And there's the fact that they were all literally thousands of kilometers further along axes of advance than the German efforts ever got.
I agree that citation needed. I’m not offering it as a sure thing. I’m suggesting it as a nonstandard perspective about the war. I think it would work.
If you want an example, israel encircling the Egyptian military in the yin kipper war, when they sued for truce. It’s not 1 to 1 but it’s an example.
I have to admit I don't know the Yom Kippur war nearly as well as I know WW2, but i'm not convinced it was the plight of the Third Army that brought Egypt to the peace table so much as it was Operation Gazelle having the Israelis cross the Suez Canal and be in a position to directly threaten Cairo.
You don't have that kind of parallel to the German threat to the UK, even if the BEF is captured to a man.
It was widely considered to be the third army’s encirclement that did it, but like I said it’s not one to one. Although this would leave Hitler across the channel, in much the same position, capable of threatening London (at least in minds of ordinary britishers, obvs he never really could)
Yes, but in one case, the encirclement of the army leaves the country in imminent threat of being overrun, and the other it doesn't. And this is in the minds of policy elites, not Joe Public. I'm not sure how much the opinion of ordinary British citizens affects the perception of threat here, and I'm not sure how much the loss of the BEF would be in that calculation in any case. Egypt, on the other hand, is much more immediately at risk of Israeli tanks parading through their capitol, and I suspect that the chain of logic of whatever elements of the Egyptian govenrment that decided to peace out was more along the lines of
>Shit, we lost the army. We've got this huge hole in our lines. The Israelis can end run and oh Allah, they might occupy the whole country
And not
>Shit, we lost the army. What will happen to our soldiers taking up residence in PoW camps?
When the latter is certainly how I interpreted (possibly erroneously)
with the whole "use them as a bargaining chip" bit.
I’m not sure either and it’s not one to one. But I think it would very likely have brought the Brits to the bargaining table, and from there anything could happen, in my opinion
thanks for the free knowledge, i hope i can exploit you again in the future, tool
>too many people
It would have been bad for morale, sure, but it's disingenuous to say that Britain would have tapped out of the war after how much they were bombed by one of their oldest enemies. Every future battle would have happened, it just would have been Americans fighting instead of Brits.
I think it might have cooled the passions if he showed true desire to come to the table.
No. You have to realize that politics is an incredibly petty business. Especially politics between Britain, France, and Germany. They have histories spanning centuries. They've never liked each other. They waged multiple wars to pull whichever crab was climbing out of the bucket back down. Britain and France would have rather burned to the ground than quietly accept German hegemony, especially with the US's support.
I disagree. It’s not clear they wouldn’t come to the table.
>why on earth do you think this is actually a bargaining chip for peace with Britain?
because it would set parents against the government and harm the relation between the government and its people.
germany could have captured several oil sources. why didnt they? hitlers blind spots probably.
the usa was not going to join the war in the unequivocal absolute 100% of scenarios and to say so is moronic troony tier bullshit. stop copying shitty rhetoric you got from youtube.
>Hitler's blind spots
Confirmed moron that doesn't actually read. Hitler was the one fighting with his commanders to try and make them head south to capture the oil fields in the Caucasus. They're the ones who insisted on going for major cities to "secure a surrender".
Hitlers big mistake was the same that consumed most other great men before him. He saw the vision of the over-man as one who sheds sins and weaknesses and becomes something greater, but he made the classic mistake of neglecting to deal with mans sins which give an aura of pride and strength that oft blind men to the terrible weaknesses hidden below the surface. that sinful pride and "strength" were ultimately his undoing, leading him and his people down a path of destruction.
TLDR: he embraced the likes of nietzsche instead of embracing Christ like he should have, and it was ultimately his undoing
Thinking israelite puppets(Britain,France,US) have morals
Having a quack doctor who shot him up with meth every day
not knowing how to paint.
Not shaving off that stupid mustache. It made him look like known GYPSY Charlie Chaplain.
going into politics instead of just accepting the offer to be an architech
ally with shitaly
Being a papist.
Trusting the Br*tish
Sinking the lucitania
If he could have gotten America to stay out of it he would have won.
No (you) for you
Wasn't recommended by some of his teachers to get into architecture?
Not finishing Britain off before starting on Russia and letting Japan attack America
Pursuing a career in politics instead of art.
>is the greatest politician of all time
Ransoming Louise de Rothschild in 1942.
Sparing the lives of israelites in Germany.
Sparing the British Army.
Sparing Britain.
Not using chemical and biological weapons.
Sparing enemy civillains.
Cooperating with bolsheviks.
Remember, mercy to your enemy is cruelty to your volk.
Probably his Anglophilia which all his goals were in complete contradiction to
Hitler had luke-warm views towards England at best and admired their navy.
I don't know where you people keep getting that he was an Anglophile. He spoke down on them and was happy to bomb and kill them
Hitler spoke extensively and openly about how great the English people were, that they were a shining example of Germanic superiority; the Anglo-Saxon race who went on to conquer the world and subjugated all lesser races. He went to incessant lengths to try and build a good relationship with Great Britain right up until the moment when it became clear it wasn't going to work out and that any attempts to further push this would be detrimental to his goals. It's a testament to British wartime propaganda that people think he was not keen on the English.
facts.
He wanted Germany's Army to be the continental equivalent to Britain's Navy.
He believed the BS hype that the UK was strong or ruled the waves.
He believed the bs of mercantalism: that Germany was behind because it built trains for its' own people instead of streetshitters (the opposite's true).
The British were his most-wanted ally. He even had his top guy fly over to meet with their royalty.
As israelitecentric as golems perceive Hitler's worldview to be, he mistakenly conceived of the US, UK, and France as independent actors rather than one israelite collective.
you are stupid
Attacking Russia before dealing with Britain.
Taking the home island would be a stretch too far for the Wehrmacht but securing Gibraltar and Suez was doable.
>but securing Gibraltar and Suez was doable.
Haha, what?
not actually doing the hall of cost
not realizing the actual elite israelites were using him to genocide his own people lol
well, he failed so hard that the only people who worship him are people who lose their jobs and neckbeard incels on the internet. at least commies have hot girls who larp so you can get some pussy
Having one testicle, closely followed by frequently shitting his pants.
Picking a fight with the Slavic BVLL and proving once and for all that Slavs > germans
Not becoming an architect
Taking meth
Not swallowing his pride and going to architecture school
The V2 project was pretty moronic