/his/ - History

Well, he tried to attack russia, that sure went well.

I applaud his choice in facial hair. His actions managed to kill the toothbrush mustache in the western world.

>>30192

They were doing pretty damn good for a while and nearly won in spite of massive allied financial aid.

>>30198

>nearly won

They got 5-10% of the biggest land country on earth, and were nowhere near its industrial base. They couldn't win a war of attrition and they only got as far as they did because Stalin had all the army generals purged.

>>30200

>grosse Gaben

wot?

>>30204

Gabe Newell.

>>30170

He should have given more power to his generals (military experts) as Stalin did.

They kept telling him, "Mein Fuhrer, this won't work. We lack the men and equipment. We need to retreat/ attack at a later date," but he wouldn't listen. Stalin took the political reigns, and allowed his generals to work on the battlefield.

That's just one mistake.

>>30201

He might made made it if he didn't spend so much time trying to capture stalingrad, he should have went and gotten the oilfields in the cuasuses and went for Moscow

>>30201

You need to read up a bit more if you really think the Germans never had a shot at winning.

>>30201

Calm down, Putin.

>>30219

Their only shot at winning was getting the Soviet government to collapse since they were hopelessly outmatched in any sort of production comparison. The Nazi generals claimed that would happen if they captured Moscow, but I seriously doubt it; their habit of burning down villages made the people far more endeared to Stalin then they otherwise would be.

>>30240

>The Germans outmatched the Soviets in production.

nop

https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/opk2000mobilisation.pdf

>>30243

Huh that's interesting, I thought German superiority in raw infrastructure and already present industry meant they would outproduce the soviets in war materials. That's pretty enlightening, thanks.

I still think the Germans were close, they just couldn't take a punch like the Soviets

>>30240

>>30227

>>30243

I'd say it would have worked if moscow fell, keep in mind that the soviet leadership was heavily centralized in the capital and most major train tracks met there so conquering it would have effectivley disabled a main traffic junction of the soviet union. Also it's important that a good amount of the population was oppposed to stalin, especially in the rural regions, if the the soviet leadership could no longer properly organize everything and keep them silent you'd soon have uprisings in the easter regions.

As for the warfare, the soviet production was larger but a lot of thier shit was useless, for instance thier tank productions failed miserably only 10% was actually working. If they hadn't handled stalingrad as good as they did, they couldn't have trapped the germans in a war of attrition which they couldn't loose as their material losses were easily replaced with the help of the land-lease and their loss of human resources by their vast population. The last aspect is very important as it reflected upon the tactical approach of the push back, every dead german soldier and every disabled german tank were almost irreplaceable whereas soviet soldiers charged the enemy in masses. I mean Kurks is a perfect example for this, the soviet leadership didn't seek a dessisive victory, they just turned the battle into a slaughterhouse for german tanks and troops.

>>30243

>>30244

You forget that a lot of the Svoiet gear created thoughout the Five Yar Plans and the war was sp shit it couldn't be used as people tried to finish their quotas quickly or otherwise risk being sent to a gulag

>>30268

>the Geman equipement was crap. A Tiger may be better than 4 Shermans or 3 T34, but for every Tiger the US produced far more than 4 Shermans and the URSS produced far more than 3 T34.

First of all this is kind of a paradox statement, it wasn't crap, the Tiger was, as you said, the superior tank, but too complex which slowed the production as specialists were needed to asemble one while the sherman tank could be asembled like a car by ordinary workers. The thing with the T34 was that it just didn't work properly most of the time, we talk about the soviet union here, as >>30263 said the workers needed to fill a quota, the result of that was that 90% of all produced T34 had defects.

>Besides that, Hitler was always messing with weapon production

There is a lot of truth to that especially for the Stg44., Hitler really fucked up on that one, but in generall I'd say they experimented too much in some cases. Sometimes this was usefull but it often resulted in overly complex designes and pretty ridicouless stuff like the landcruiser shit

>>30170

He failed to knock the UK out of the war by '41, notably in the battle of Britain

He also failed to take Moscow in '41, if the Germans had taken Moscow, the USSR could have very well collapsed. He also failed to make use of the eastern front as a "liberation war against communism". Had he done that, used more RLA troops and propaganda, and made it clear that he wouldn't dismantle Russia he would have been far more successful.

However, the end result probably would have been the US nuking Berlin

>>30276

>in another life Hitler is a fashion designer for Hugo Boss

>>30288

>And how would Africa go about?

I think the British would have left to defend Britain from a German invasion. Germany would wreck UK in an invasion, from there I'm guessing they could have negotiated a peace treaty with the US on the condition that Japan could keep their territorial gains? Not being edgy bur I reckon the US would have said yes to that just because there was no way they could have invaded Germany, even if they wanted to, with Britain out of the war.

And then Hitler could kill everyone in Europe who didn't have blonde hair and blue eyes :^)

>>30291

>I think the British would have left to defend Britain from a German invasion.

Germany wouldn't invade without air or naval superiority, neither of which they were going to get.

>Not being edgy bur I reckon the US would have said yes to that just because there was no way they could have invaded Germany, even if they wanted to, with Britain out of the war.

That's a very silly assumption to make.

>>30296

They had air superiority, but Göring did a bunch of poor tactical decitions during the battle of Britain.

>>30296

>That's a very silly assumption to make.

I personally don't see how, how else are the Americans going to invade Germany without the geographical base of Britain?

>>30288

>how would Africa go about?

I don't think the Axis would have won there without significant troop commitment from Germany. And the eastern front would have required a huge portion of german manpower to not only hold the region against partisans, but also against Soviet rearmament.

>>30291

>Germany would wreck UK in an invasion

I don't think the Germans could have successfully invaded the UK in first place. They just didn't have the means to do it. Especially in naval superiority, and by '41 you would have had the USN and USAAF to help defend the british isles as well. I mean look how long it took the US and Brits time to devise up a decent means of conducting mass naval invasions without getting slaughtered.

The idea that Germany was seriously planning to conquer Britain is one of the most successful falsehoods of the war. Hitler demobilized 20% of the army after France was conquered - and can we remember here that it was France that declared war on Germany, not the other way around, or that French troops had invaded German states more than thirty times in the previous two centuries? The day after he took office in May 1940 Churchill ordered the first RAF air strikes against German cities. Germany responded in kind months later after all her offers to end the conflict had been exhausted, in hopes that a taste of the fury of war would cause Britons to replace Churchill with a more reasonable man. Hitler had no stomach for war with England: he admired the British Empire and thought it a bulwark of world stability. He never unleashed the full power of his military against England. Instead of destroying the force the British had invaded the continent with at Dunkirk he allowed them to retreat, as a gesture of goodwill that was ignored at the time and erased from memory today.

It has truly been said that the tale we have of Nazi Germany is like witnessing a trial in which only the prosecution's argument and witnesses are allowed to address the jury. Marx correctly observed that in the modern world, nation-states function chiefly as agents of international capital. When you consider that "National" and "Socialist" are the first two words in the NSDAP name, then you have the reason why western imperialism and totalitarian communism found common cause in the merciless annihilation of the German revolution and the relentless propagandizing of that government as the greatest evil of human history.

Hitler accurately argued that the absence of sufficient state controls is the fatal flaw inherent in liberal democracy, which enables the wealthy class to manipulate the economy, the press and elected representatives for its own gain. He stated bluntly, "we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." His hostility toward totalitarian communism is well known.

>>30311

The thread is about what he did wrong, and from a strategic point, failing to destroy the UK was a huge fuckup on his part. Rationally speaking, the UK, especially under Churchill who was incredibly anti-German and specifically anti-Hitler, would never have come to the peace table willingly

>>30307

Via Italy through North Africa, or through the middle east, or through the baltic states.

>>30311

>Hitler demobilized 20% of the army after France was conquered - and can we remember here that it was France that declared war on Germany, not the other way around

France and England also made no aggresive moves towards Germany until Germany invaded France; they were clearly intending to sit on their laurels because they were stupid.

Also, this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion

>>30321

>through the baltic states.

you know where the baltic states are right anon?

>>30324

oops

Finland could have been persuaded to let them through at the time if the war between Russia and Germany had ended.

>>30327

>>30321

>Via Italy through North Africa

Now you're seeming pretty far-fetched, after landing in North Africa you expect the US troops to fight off the Germans and Italians, cross into Italy, fight through Italy and then take on the whole of Europe?

>through the middle east

Tell me how this would work when there was a Nazi presence in the Middle-East, as well as anti-British feeling due to British betrayal and their attitude to Zionism. Plus the Americans have to sail PAST the Pacific Ocean to get there, the Japanese navy battering them as they go.

>Finland could have been persuaded to let them through

They would have to cross the Atlantic Ocean, bypass occupied Denmark and Sweden to get to Finland. The Finnish might not even agree for the Americans to come through because there would be no way for the Americans to win the war. If they somehow do let them through, the US is going to be facing harsh conditions, the full German army, Russian militia troops and a German blockcade with supplies and reinforcements halfway around the world.

>>30329

>Now you're seeming pretty far-fetched, after landing in North Africa you expect the US troops to fight off the Germans and Italians, cross into Italy, fight through Italy and then take on the whole of Europe?

They already did it in 1943 while Russia was fighting Germany, so there would only be a linear increase in German firepower that couldn't overcome the American industrial base.

>Tell me how this would work when there was a Nazi presence in the Middle-East, as well as anti-British feeling due to British betrayal and their attitude to Zionism.

The British ruthlessly crushed those feelings out of them when the time came for it, so the amount of resistance they could provide to the Americans is questionable. Also, they could sail through the Mediterranean instead of through the Pacific y'know

>They would have to cross the Atlantic Ocean, bypass occupied Denmark and Sweden to get to Finland

Easily done through the sea.

>The Finnish might not even agree for the Americans to come through because there would be no way for the Americans to win the war.

They might disagree but not necessarily for that reason.

> If they somehow do let them through, the US is going to be facing harsh conditions, the full German army, Russian militia troops and a German blockcade with supplies and reinforcements halfway around the world.

Why would they be fighting Russian militias? And how would Germany stop resupplying through the sea? 1943 was when the German U boats were already beginning to lose the fight over the Atlantic and their surface fleet wasn't that impressive.

>>30227

>>30240

They had a shot at taking Moscow, very close indeed, but couldn't make it

>Operationally, the Germans won resounding victories and occupied some of the most important economic areas of the Soviet Union, mainly in Ukraine, both inflicting and sustaining heavy casualties. Despite their successes, the German offensive stalled on the outskirts of Moscow and was subsequently pushed back by a Soviet counteroffensive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

>>30334

I'd upload a pdf to support those images but can't upload pdfs on this board.

>>30334

>arguing semantics

By NSDAP's viewpoint, only Nazi Germany was true socialist, while Soviet union was fake socialism co-opted by Jews.

>>30337

No country on a massive scale has reached socialism, by it's definition.

The USSR never did and neither did Germany.

>>30337

>Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and/or social control[1] of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[2][3] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Neither the USSR nor Nazi Germany did this. Not a socialist, mind you.

>>30339

>as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

>>30341

Your point being? Economics are economics. It's the system they had for both parties. They both failed to establish said economy.

>>30337

>fake socialism

Poor communism. The only career capacity the country had was slave labor in gulags so everybody equally got that.

>>30329

United States troops dramatically outnumbered Germany throughout the war. For instance, battle of the bulge had around 800,000 allied riflemen and 300,000 Germans. It saw allied victory with 80,000 german casualties and 100,000+ allied casualties.

If you can't defend Omaha beach with counter siege tactics within given resources, you aren't going to pull many more men and resources out of your butt to continue omaha tier defence.

>>30385

During the war the Germans had the majority of their troops in the East with fewer troops in France because there was little need for them. Also, the D-Day landings were a failure because the British planted fake documents, sent fake messages and used double-agents to say that they would invade on a different area of France, which meant Normandy was undefended as fuck.

>>30395

Normandy was shelled out of the ass, and you can only build so many bunkers. Past a certain point adding more defenders to Normandy would have no effect. Remember, Gold beach landed flawlessly and the 101st airborne landed behind the germans, so even if they whiped the second wave of landings out of the water they were still surrounded by the allied navy and infantry.

>us declares war on the reds in 1917

>germany fails in politically aligning itself with the united states so badly that the US allies with the reds not 30 years later

Tell me that germany didn't fuck up their chances to win. They easily could've done better politically.

>>30462

>US

>siding with Germany in WW1

would have never happened

>>30465

It was certainly possible that they wouldn't have intervened in the favor of the Entente.

Whoever wrote the Zimmerman telegram deserved a gold star for retardation.

MUH LONG RANGED BOMBERS

>>30477

>they wouldn't have intervened in the favor of the Entente.

Too much money riding on the matter, if the Entente had fallen, the US would have had it's economy implode

>>30334

go home leftypol, you repost these images countless times trying to prove that they weren't socialists.

>look! they privatized steel amongst other things before the war! i told you they weren't socialist!

gee i wonder why they would do such a thing …oy gevalt…

>>30170

>It's easy to say that Hitler fucked up

Indeed. There is an enormous mountain of sources that can back that up.

>Did he act rationally given his intel and resources?

No. For the simple reason that Hitler was not a rational man. I'm not saying he was insane, as many are fond of doing (though he was probably pretty mentally fucked by the end, given the intense stress and everything) but that he wasn't a remotely rational person.

Also, for the few people who mentioned Germany's production during WW2 - read Albert Speer's autobiography. While what they made was of high quality, it was built in the most retarded fashion possible. If they'd used production methods similar to the Allies, we might be having a very different discussion (since they would have had large quantities of high quality arms by 1941 and jet fighters and possibly even bombers for the Luftwaffe by 1943.)

>>32899

Interesting. Thanks.

>>30857

>Anyone that recognizes that didn't have a socialist economy is /leftypol/

Great

It had a very centralized economy

>>30288

>And how would Africa go about?

Keep in mind a lot of troops there were ANZACs and Canadians, Japanese were bombing Australia in 42 through to 43. Brits had already given up on their colonies in Oceania and South East Asia, India was getting uppity with Japanese successfully installing puppet governments in the region. Singapore fell with the largest surrender in British history, they weren't in a good position.

Combine that with Nazis funding homegrown opposition like the British Union of Fascists and you may have them signing a peace treaty on favourable conditions with the Nazis.

Japan would not have to worry about a Soviet attack and put their troops to use against the US and stabilising their territorial gains which would've undoubtedly helped their puppet governments and boosted their resources. US sanctions may not even effect them at that point.

>>30192

Funny Barbarosa was almost at the exact same date as Napoleon's invasion.

The invasion of Russia makes a lot of fucking sense. Gotta grab the oil in the southern regions and knock out that gommie Stalin before he causes any trouble. A fully mobilised Russia would demolish Europe Hitler was able to stop that from happening with the huge casualties they inflicted on the Russian army.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and talk about his domestic policies. A lot of you guys might not agree but here's my two cents based on my knowledge of society-building and international development.

His racial superiority politics really played against his leninist society-building politics. I'm not saying "boo hoo the poor Jews" so much as noting the fact that a good socialist doesn't embrace separatism so much as corporatism. You see this working well in Singapore especially, where racial differences are noted and respected but ultimately ignored in the grand scheme of things, nationality being the grand unifier. In fact, if you ask an Indian or Chinese dude in Singapore what they identify as, they'll almost always say Singaporean, because their country doesn't make an issue of race like Europe always has.

In fact, it might even be said that Hitler's racial politics contributed to the state of social marxism in Europe today. If Western Europe hadn't become so race-conscious, they might focus on building socialism without racial politics, which means no Sharia Law or other bullshit, just a place for every man, woman, child, or invalid, regardless of whether he's a Brit, a Frenchie or a Muhammad.

Compounding on this was the Krystalnacht and laws where you could basically lose all your property rights based on race. Coco Chanel tried to sue for total control of her company based solely on the ethnic/religious status of her business partner. Functional modern societies have functional rule of law, and do not make huge inconsistent bends based on petty shit like this. It's a shame because NatSoc really had some fantastic ideas for creating a modern society, but then it decided to kick out some of the most functional republican ideas in favor of race-baiting, which is still one of the biggest plagues on successful nation-building in the modern day. If there is a single reason why new Eastern nations will quickly surpass the West, it's because they waste almost none of their time on racial politics while we waste almost all of ours. And yet many new Asian republics such as Hong Kong and Taiwan seem to be well set to quickly erase some of the worst issues facing racial harmony.

>>33537

>tfw you will never go back to 1933 with this list and tell Hitler what to do right

>>33537

>Wasted time and money looking for a super weapon.

>Didn't put serious effort into nuclear research.

????

>>33537

>Didn't put serious effort into nuclear research.

Would it really have mattered? Weren't the nazis barking up the wrong tree because the right way to do nuclear fission was jewish science and for that matter would they even be able to fund mass construction of the bombs without defunding other important project.

Would they even be able to make a bomb before it would be the last desperate move of the 4th reach?

>>33564

He's probably have you executed

>>30276

The primary reason for that is that he realized the power of well-orchestrated propaganda from his experiences in WWI.

Gotta have everyone on the same page, or you get a bunch of faggots saying "Maybe we don't need this war" when they're within a month of making a major breakthrough, setting up a strike at a munitions factory, and ruining everything through simple selfishness.

Hitler could have won if he just goaded the communists in Russia to declare war on him and gain support from the other European nations , making WW2 basically Russia vs the World

>>34385

He tried to do that, Britain flat out refused Hitler's offer of an alliance, mainly because they knew Hitler was after the Alsace-Lorraine, also Poland buffing up their military and Britain supporting them meant Germany was pretty fucked and its West vs East vision failed.

>>30192

To be fair it actually did go really well in WW1, they kicked Russia's shit in. Hitler probably figured they could do it a second time.

>>33564

If he wouldn't listen to his generals, I don't think he'll listen to some random, time-travelling fuck.

>>34392

He probably didn't anticipate how hard it would be to keep moving East, when in the First World War Germany kicked Russia's shit in before signing an armistice for more land.

The biggest mistake that Hitler made is his indulgence of the aristocratic military machine. Hitler was a remarkable man but the his subordinates, especially in intelligence, extremely thwarted his war effort. It is easy to say this in retrospect, but I'm not sure how easy that would have been for him. At the same time, the fact that he did preserve a lot of the existing generals and didn't just replace the whole thing shows how much of a nationalist he was, wanting to please every level of society. In that regard, that can hardly be seen as a mistake either.

Another apparent blunder of his is that he didn't give free hand to Goering with regard to retaliatory strikes on Britain. But this can hardly be viewed as a mistake either, because Hitler never wanted war with Britain and couldn't have known that Churchill was just that much of a warmongering prick. Given a leader like Chamberlain, perhaps Britain would have called off the pointless war altogether, and then Hitler would have been right to not stay his hand with regard to bombing Britain.

But these are largely in retrospect and they are hardly Hitler's fault. Hitler was a great leader sabotaged by his subordinates.

>>30311

>he let them escape at Dunkirk

he didn't let them escape, his land units were exhausted, with repairs to panzers urgently needed and supply lines stretched. He trusted Georing to destroy them with the Luftwaffe but that fat heroin addict failed.