Why didn't Hitler:
>Ship the jews off to madagascar
>Reinforce the Romanian oilfields
>Not invade anything and wait until Germany had overwhelming technological superiority
?
>>1015602
>>Not invade anything and wait until Germany had overwhelming technological superiority
Because of this.
Okay not madagascar, but somewhere he could have shipped them.
>>1015602
>Not invade anything and wait until Germany had overwhelming technological superiority
Because Soviet industry was developing so rapidly that it would have outpaced Germany by 1943, which was basically the Soviet plans for the war from the start (i.e. hoping that France and Germany would fight WWI style until 1943 when the USSR would kick in Germany's back door).
The Nazis either had to start the war when they did, or they wouldn't be in a good position to win later on.
>>1015602
>Ship the jews off to madagascar
Through the British fleet?
>Reinforce the Romanian oilfields
I mean, he did. You had the entire Army Group South Ukraine as well as Wohler in the country when you had the Jassny-Kishniev offensive. They got steamrollered.
>Not invade anything and wait until Germany had overwhelming technological superiority
Because the only area the Germans had far and a way technological superiority was in rocketry. In everything else, they were either ahead by a hair, or far behind to someone on the major allied powers.
What made the Wehrmacht work was high degrees of inter-arm coordination, superior training, greater initiative at lower ranks: People factors, not technological ones. You wait longer, and you're likely to lose those, or have your adversaries catch up to you.
Shipping Jews wasn't feasible with the outbreak of WW2. By 1945 the Soviets would have mustered a juggernaut of tanks, planes, men and artillery that would be nigh impossible to beat head on so Germany would have had to invade an unprepared USSR as some point.
>>1015614
Is there any consensus on how the Germans could have won with the gift of hindsight?
>Nazi technological superiority
Is there a more prevalent meme?
>>1015602
>>Ship the jews off to madagascar
It's likely that the German leadership did not have any crystallized idea what to do with Jews until already during the war. By then, the most radical faction had the most to say.
>>Reinforce the Romanian oilfields
How?
>>Not invade anything and wait until Germany had overwhelming technological superiority
Because German economy was collapsing by early 1939 and needed war plunder of occupied territories to stay afloat.
>>1015602
I think the reason why they didn't ship the Jews to Madagascar was because the Battle with Britain failed. Because of this Germany would not be able to use Britain's fleet like originally planned so the whole idea was abandoned.
>>1015618
They wouldn't be at war with Britain if he didn't invade Poland right? Would the Brits have intercepted jews being resettled?
>>1015625
Not him, but there's a fairly strong consensus that there was nothing the Germans could have done to win WW2, no matter how well they fought it: In fact, there are considerably easier alterations to make to a timeline to bring defeat much faster to the Germans, it's something of a minor miracle they did as well as they did.
>>1015625
Considering how much lack they had with both the invasion of France, Norway and the USSR and still failed to destroy the USSR army, by having Hell freeze over so they could travel over the now frozen English Channel with their panzers?
>>1015635
If he didn't invade Poland, he's got a Jewish population of about 250,000 and shrinking. The need for mass deportations arose because they conquered Poland and added about 3.5 million Jews to the empire in doing so.
>>1015625
Not invade the USSR until Britisn capitulated by continuing to focus on destroying the RAF instead of bombing civilians. Do not declare war on the US when Japan attacks them. Plus when invading the USSR, take Moscow and Leningrad at all costs despite heavy urban combat casualties as you free up focus on taking the South.
>>1015638
What prevented him from allying with France, the UK and the US?
>>1015661
>Invest everything at Moscow
>Central front collapses
>German army gets stack like in Stalingrad, or even worse, fails to reach the city
>No Ukrainian oil fields from fall Blau
>>1015661
They did not have the time to wait for Britain to capitulate. At the time of Operation Barbarossa, the Soviet Union had the largest tank force in the world, and they were only going to widen the gap while increasing the size of their standing army.
The Nazis had no choice but to invest every single resource available into crushing the USSR. It wasn't enough. It was never going to be enough, and there is nothing they could have done to avert defeat and Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.
>>1015602
>Ship the jews off to madagascar
There was a plan to, but the war made that unrealistic.
>Not invade anything and wait until Germany had overwhelming technological superiority
Seems like they had it. All they needed was oil. They didn't count on the war taking so long or drawing in so many people I guess.
>>1015692
>The Nazis had no choice but to invest every single resource available into crushing the USSR. It wasn't enough. It was never going to be enough, and there is nothing they could have done to avert defeat and Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.
BS. Stalin was aware of the problems that the Red Army faced and had no intentions to pick up fight with Hitler at least in the middle term.
That's a nice Hitler image you got there.
Mind if I steal it?
>>1015661
Would never work. If the RAF relocates their bases to the midlands, you can't escort your bombers on their runs to hit bases. And even if you wreck the RAF somehow (remember, they're outbuilding you in both planes and pilots!) you would need to bomb civilians anyway at some point to put pressure on the government and get a capitulation.
>Do not declare war on the US when Japan attacks them.
And have the U.S. continue their undelcared war against you? Pump billions of Lend-Lease to your enemies? Probably declare war on you formally in a few months?
>Plus when invading the USSR, take Moscow and Leningrad at all costs despite heavy urban combat casualties as you free up focus on taking the South.
Take your pick: Soviets bomb Ploesti from Kiev, Soviets counterattack AGS and put your flank in disarray, Soviets withdraw the troops in the south to reinforce Moscow, Soviets attack north out of Kiev to turn your flank when you're trying to hit Moscow.
>>1015667
His policies.
>>1015669
To be fair, the oil take from captured Soviet wells was tiny; they did a pretty good job of wrecking things before withdrawing.
>>1015713
What if we wait till 1943-44?
>>1015669
A gamble but without a Soviet defeat in Moscow and Leningrad to force capitulation; Germany loses regardless.
>>1015713
Yes, I am sure why the USSR did the most preparing for war of any country.
Stalin was the only Allied leader before the war who recognized that war with Germany was inevitable (and he said that publicly as early as January 1941).
>>1015719
>To be fair, the oil take from captured Soviet wells was tiny; they did a pretty good job of wrecking things before withdrawing.
I see.
If we suppose it's right before fall Blau (Rather sure the reason he didn't advance at Moscow earlier was that the central army risked to collapse) wouldn't an advance at Moscow most likely have been futile as the Soviets expected the attack to occur there and had built up a large quantity of troops at the sector? This left the southern front weak.
>>1015720
Not him, but a lot depends on doctrine, not gear-up. The Soviet forces, on paper, were vastly superior to the Germans in 1941. They had something like 5 times as many tanks, 3 times as many planes, a lot more artillery, just better equipped all around.
But, things were terribly ordered, terribly organized, just terribly put together. A Soviet 152mm howitzer battery probably had better gun barrels, could fire further, and longer than their German 155mm counterparts, but the Germans were better at determining where in the battlefield artillery support needed to be directed and processing the orders to get the guns firing there faster, which turns out is often more important.
If the Soviets build 5 times as much crap, and still have their godawful strategy and command issues, they'd probably still get their shit kicked in. If Stalin can implement some reforms and get better command and control, they'll shitstomp the Germans.
>>1015692
True that not to mention having to occupy Western Europe where manpower is needed in the East. Perhaps Hiitler should have goaded the Soviets to attack Poland; earning them the wrath of Western Europe and Germany goes in from there in attacking a 38-39 USSR which was must weaker and without T-36's like in 41
>everyone saying that Hitler couldn't have shipped Jews to Madagascar.
>Even though France was willing to give it up to Poland, if they would manage the transport and settling them there.
>Even though zionists would probably be happy with that.
>>1015740
Wasn't the Soviet in the middle of a major army reform at the time the Germans invaded, where they wanted to transform their army from an idiotic system of pushing everything up towards the front to having a deep-defense?
Why did Hitler have to deport or kill jews?
With his power couldn't he have just destroyed Jewish identity through social engineering?
>>1015740
That is precisely what Stalin was trying to do. A whole network of military education institutions were being built and an entire class of officers were being trained.
Moreover, the Soviets were producing an absolute shitton of military equipment every year from 1939 to 1941.
>>1015736
>If we suppose it's right before fall Blau (Rather sure the reason he didn't advance at Moscow earlier was that the central army risked to collapse) wouldn't an advance at Moscow most likely have been futile as the Soviets expected the attack to occur there and had built up a large quantity of troops at the sector? This left the southern front weak.
If we're talking 1942, yes; but it wasn't just that. The Vyzama counterattacks were pretty successful up around Moscow, which led STAVKA to the erroneous conclusion that the Wehrmacht had shot its bolt, they were on their last legs, and one good hard push would throw them out of the country.
This led to a number of spring attacks in the center and south in 1942 which didn't go so good, losing a lot of troops, and that left the sectors weak, it wasn't some grand plan to super-concentrate around Moscow.
>>1015747
The Soviets were always in the middle of "major army reforms", it was part of Stalin's way of keeping the military from overthrowing him, to keep reorganizing shit.
As far as I'm aware though (but I want to add I have not done a lot of reading on the subject) there were no plans to adopt defense in depth in any 1941 reorganizations.
>>1015759
Oh, sure, they had officer training schools, but often it was about party indoctrination, and what tactics were taught were mostly hearkening back to the Russian Civil War, not looking ahead to the future. The whole Deep Battle doctrine is particularly influenced by it: About the only time multi-axial attacks like that are good ideas are when you have this vast, intermixed zone of control and not-control: If you've got a line of battle with a hostile country, building up multiple local superiorities to mount multiple attacks successfully requires you to have such an overwhelming force advantage anyway that it probably doesn't matter what strategy you're using at that point.
>>1015774
That's why the Soviets were also creating such an overwhelming force advantage.
>>1015774
"Deep battle" was not taught to soviet officers they were driven to volga, what with Tukhachevsky having fallen from grace.
>>1015793
And yet they continued its precepts, despite Tukhachevsky's disfavor (And purging). Soviet offensives were always broad, always hitting at least two major sectors at the same time, and often trying for 3-4. They would try to infiltrate with infantry, they would try to exploit gaps with mechanized forces, and when they looked at failed offensives, internal evaluation was often by failing to adhere to principles laid out in Deep Battle, even if they didn't refer to it directly.
>>1015625
Yeah not start it
>>1015602
They had barely enough shipping for their economy, let alone ship 6 gorillion jewz to the other end of the world. Madagascar wasn't their possession. And any shipping would've been stopped by the Royal Navy, who made Germany their bitch.
How could you do that to the poor Malagasy people?
There was also the fact that the Red Army was getting the fuck purged out of it, most of it's White (Read: Good) officers were imprisoned or tortured or getting spiffy new dental plans at the time.
>>1015629
>rockets
>jet engine
>on the verge of nuclear capability
The allies had a whopping one of these things. The area where allies had better technology was radar and semi-auto firearms (of which the Axis were capable, but they opted out of until it was too late).
>>1015602
Hitler was obsessed with redoing World War One.
He carefully timed the military build up and even complained that he had been cheated out of his war when England and France didn't declare war after the annexation of Tsechoslovakia.
He was well aware that Germany had an advantage in military and production around 39-40 but that the Alllies would quickly catch up in the following years.
>>1015602
>He didn't own Madagascar
>He didn't own Romania
>He couldn't do the two above if he didn't invade everything
>Also Nazi Germany operated on a wartime economy from the start and the Soviet Union was quickly outproducing everyone else
>>1015602
>Reinforce the Romanian oilfields
Because the western allies bombed the shit out of it.
>>1015602
>wait until Germany had overwhelming technological superiority
How could that have happened when they chased their best scientists out of the country and the geniuses they left behind thought that there wasn't enough uranium in the world to build a nuclear bomb? Or when the Soviet industrial sector was already starting to outproduce the German one and would have dwarfed it by the late 1940s? Or when Germany's economy was barely hanging on as it was?
And when the hell did Nazi Germany annex Madagascar? Are you writing this from an alternate timeline? Or are you assuming that Vichy France has handed it over to him, in which case how is he going to get his ships past the Royal Navy?
>>1015638
You mean they couldn't win as per the original plans of Barbarossa. But they could force Russia into an immediate capitulation in late 1942, and not in a war of total annihilation. But Hitler was a complete retard.
What he should have done is force Stalin to give up the Baltic's, Poland, Ukraine and Besarabia.
>>1018354
>on the verge of nuclear capability
This simply isn't true. The Nazis never even go to the level that the Manhattan Project was at in 1942, let alone 1945. Heisenberg's calculations were hilariously wrong, and they had no easy access to the materials they would have needed to built a bomb even if he had finally figured out his own mistakes and corrected them. Not to mention that the best nuclear physicists had fled Europe by that point.
And even if all of those things hadn't stood in their way, the Germans couldn't devote the necessary resources to build a bomb. If you look at the cost of the Manhattan Project, an equivalent effort by Germany would have taken up more than 1/3 of their GDP. So they would have had to bring most of their military production in other areas completely to a halt in order to build just one bomb, drastically weakening the German Army, Navy, and Air Force.
>>1015707
>Seems like they had it.
This is a /his/tory board, buddy. Take your sci-fi bullshit to /lit/.
![gloster-meteor-2150x1588[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/SWJSn36.jpg "gloster-meteor-2150x1588[1].jpg")
>>1018354
You are wrong in so many ways but let me point out just one.
>>1018354
>rockets
new york rocket wouldn't have been done until 1947
>jet engine
prototype engines that ran on diesel and killed more 262 pilots than fighters did
>on the verge of nuclear capability
never even got off paper
There was no "winning" in WW2 for the Nazis. Even before the US officially entered the war. They could however have avoided such a complete and comprehensive defeat, Manstein had plans for a slow retreat out of Russia and to reinforce the western front, however it's questionable if the Allies would have made a deal with the Nazis at all.
robbing ppl their assests is a very difficult thing to do legally when they are alive, they also have the ability to claim it back
jew were targeted for their wealth mainly, not because of some fairytale
there was nothing they could do against the soviet onslaught
germany was lagging behind in technology apart from short periods of time
>invading the soviet union with panzer IIs while they were already replacing their BT series with KVs and T-34s
the more they wait the further they lag behind
>>1018406
>jew were targeted for their wealth mainly, not because of some fairytale
Bullshit. Hitler really, truly believed in the jewish conspiracy.
>>1018386
The reds fought so zealously that I don't think they would have accepted.
>>1018386
As was mentioned before, the Soviets would have eclipsed the Germans in terms of military power very quickly and 5-10 years later Germany wouldn't have stood a chance against the Red Army. The only option was to crush them totally or not attack at all.
>>1018179
yea those terrible commanders like Zhukov and Malinovsky
what a shit job they did, the great "white" commanders surely could do better
>laughingwhores.jpg
>>1018408
then how could he allow ppl with jewish ancestry around himself :^)
>>1018422
He was a delusional drug addict
>>1018406
>jew were targeted for their wealth mainly,
Most Jews who were targeted were poor peasants. Even German Jews were mostly small time shopkeepers.
>>1018406
>jew were targeted for their wealth mainly, not because of some fairytale
We have no evidence of this. All of Hitler's speeches and writings, along with documents and testimony from Nazi Party members, strongly suggests that they fully believed in the Jewish conspiracy. If it was really ever about their wealth, then nobody ever said it publicly, wrote it down, or gave any indication that it was about that. There was also a strong hatred for the Jews across Europe well before WWII and even WWI (pogroms, the Dreyfuss Affair, etc.). You could argue that the fact that the Jews tended to be wealthier helped feed that hatred, but I don't think that's why they were targeted.
>>1018435
The Nazis had an independent national Bank, they didnt need any more sources to keep them going
>>1015602
> wait until Germany had overwhelming technological superiority
Soviets, you mean.
This one got it right: >>1015630
> German economy was collapsing by early 1939 and needed war plunder of occupied territories to stay afloat.
>>1015614
> Soviet plans for the war from the start
Was to sit EVERYTHING out. USSR wanted to avoid any major war, if possible. There was no reason to fight one: Russia had practically all of the resources. Except time, of course.
>>1018442
they still bought everything like anyone else
from their own companies and foreign even if allied nations
i dont think swedes were trading them for their "blue eyes" either
>>1015602
>Ship the jews off to madagascar
With what navy?
>Reinforce the Romanian oilfields
There is no situation where the Soviets have the Germans on the defensive as far as Romania where the war is still winnable
>Not invade anything and wait until Germany had overwhelming technological superiority
?????
>Wait for overwhelming technological superiority
>Get Atom bombed by a B29 flying higher than most of your interceptors ran reach
>>1018442
Staving off Hyperinflation via magic Nazi economics?
>>1018435
>look up numbers for the DMs aquired
This is a complete nonsequitur. So much so that I wonder if you are autistic or some kind of a shitposting AI.
>>1018406
>invading the soviet union with panzer IIs while they were already replacing their BT series with KVs and T-34s
T-34's didn't play a big role till the end of 1942 when they were first seen in their masses. For all of 1941 units were still built around T-26's and BT's.
The early KV's were technical horror shows, small guns that had absolutely no chance to penetrate could easily jam the turret ring. The turret armor of KV II's was so heavy the turret could only traverse on completely level ground and the weight caused the engines to overheat constantly. Both the initial KVs and T-34s had horrible transmissions and other mechanical faults common with new equipment.
>>1018462
just like their superior aryan nazi physics do not bother themselves with the puny judeobolshevist realities of the natural laws of the world
so do their superior ubermensch blonde economics not have to be burdened by the concepts of inflation, borrowing or economic crisis! the production numbers will rise 14 percent! no, 88 percent!
>>1015740
> Not him, but a lot depends on doctrine, not gear-up. The Soviet forces, on paper, were vastly superior to the Germans in 1941. They had something like 5 times as many tanks, 3 times as many planes, a lot more artillery, just better equipped all around.
Soviets had the same number of tanks as Germans did. They did the accounting differently.
When you have one tank being "assigned" (but still in transit or not even built), one tank being broken (and not even being repaired), one tank being repaired, one tank without crew, one tank with untrained crew and one proper tank with crew and supplies, Germans would say they have 1 tank, while Soviets would say they have 6 tanks.
>>1018435
>look up numbers for the DMs aquired
How does that prove anything?
>their economy needed extra sources to keep going
Yes, there's a theory I've seen which says that this was part of the reason for invading Poland. They were essentially trying to keep their economy going through plunder.
>im really sorry but nazis are nothing but glorified thiefs
Definitely. Among other things. I just don't think they carried out the Holocaust to get their hands on Jew gold
>>1018466
>T-34's didn't play a big role till the end of 1942 when they were first seen in their masses. For all of 1941 units were still built around T-26's and BT's.
well that doesn't really address the issue - the soviets had overwhelming numbers of tanks in general - most of them basically equally shitty as most of the german fleet
while at the same time they had respectable numbers of t-34s and kv-1s already at the start of barbarossa, some 1500 total i think? - cba to look up the numbers right now) - remember that the germans invaded with only about two to three times that number tanks in total, and with literally no models of comparable battlefield performance
the point being not the superiority of the individual models (which would very often be negated by poor communications and tactics and technical issues), but all the factors combined - overwhelming numerical superiority which would only grow worse for the germans and the already ongoing rearmament to superior models (of which there was a non-negligible number already in 1941, relatively speaking)
>>1018451
So you're saying as early as the 1920's Hitler foresaw the shortage in money and started his antisemitic tirades as a purely economic measure? The nazis weren't so bad after all ;))
>>1018474
>Soviets had the same number of tanks as Germans did. They did the accounting differently.
0/10 apply yourself
>>1018485
It's the truth.
>>1015602
The Madagascar plan was in development by Reinhard Heydrich. The Free French and British invaded the Island before mass movements could begin.
The Romanian Oilfields were not threatened at any point during the war until the very end when the Allies finally clued in about where they were getting their fuel from. If they heard over Engima that the Germans were sending 2 thousand anti aircraft guns that way, the RAF and USAAF would dedicated their endless fucking supplies of planes and end the war years early.
Hitler had no time to wait.
>>1018495
>The Romanian Oilfields were not threatened at any point during the war until the very end when the Allies finally clued in about where they were getting their fuel from.
You really think no one knew where Germany was getting their oil from? I've seen a lot of retarded posts on /his/ but damn.
Great , rare sources on the Soviet Orders of Battle 40-42
Soviet Order of Battle WWII Vol 1: "Deadly Beginning" Soviet Tank, Mechanized, Motorized Divisions and Tank Brigades of 1940-1942
https://mega.nz/#!dhtXXQoS!yw-gW65oP6oDP_pLj0qlva_fjAue3PWciG9cOnhblpw
>>1018412
>As was mentioned before, the Soviets would have eclipsed the Germans in terms of military power very quickly and 5-10 years later Germany wouldn't have stood a chance against the Red Army. The only option was to crush them totally or not attack at all.
Couldn't be more right
>>1018515
Soviet Order of Battle WWII Vol 2: "School of Battle" Soviet Tank Corps & Tank Brigades January 1942 to 1945
https://mega.nz/#!9odyyRDS!v9eReRojO31T4MRNdE0wz2aeQ3BfWNljcRMfCFtzwUM
>>1018412
>the Soviets would have eclipsed the Germans in terms of military power very quickly and 5-10 years later Germany wouldn't have stood a chance
That's very similar to the situation the Germans faced with Russia before World War I. It's odd that Hitler looked at that and said "let's give it another shot, it worked out great the last time".
>>1018522
It did work out fairly well last time in regard to the Russians. But that was the Russian Empire, and not literally the (declared) mortal enemy of the Nazis. In general I think WW2 can be called the second attempt at WW1, from a military point of view. The Plan was similar, so was the situation as the Germans perceived it.
>>1018522
But the Russians were as desperate for equipment in the start of WW1. Just like WW2, except dependent on loans from Britain rather than Lend-Lease from America.
>>1018483
you know theres a difference between yelling into a microphone and putting ppl into ghettos and confiscating their assests
ill let you figure out which happened when
>>1018485
I think he's talking about pic-related, i.e. units were poorly equipped and missing large amounts of their on-paper complement, especially modern non-light tanks.
Early on the Soviets did have way more tanks at one point, almost entirely old light tanks, and they were massacred in 6 weeks.
Page is from >>1018515
>>1018529
>dependent on loans from Britain rather than Lend-Lease from America.
next level anglo history bullshit
>>1018527
>In general I think WW2 can be called the second attempt at WW1, from a military point of view. The Plan was similar, so was the situation as the Germans perceived it.
i dont think such a comparison can be made - war with france an absolute necessity from the german viewpoint in ww1, whereas hitler attempted to avoid conflict (and indeed believed he succeeded for a while) with the west and the east was his sole goal
>>1018559
??? he is correct
the imperial russians borrowed 1.5 b rubles from france and 5.5 b rubles from britain in ww1
they even shipped their gold to the commonwealth as collateral
>>1018559
He's not wrong. The Russians in WWI were dependent on investment from Britain and France. American loans arrived too late to save Russia, although they did "save the day"* in the West.
*Quote from from a British account of WWI written in 1923, possibly the only thing I've ever read that literally says "the United States saved the day"
>>1018566
to put things into perspective the russians themselves issued bonds worth about 8 billion rubles worth which was some 30 percent of their 14-16 wartime budget so you can see how the 7 b from fr+br would be absolutely key
>>1018559
http://www.forbes.ru/mneniya-column/istoriya/288019-lend-liz-fakty-i-mify
>The country was forced to resort to massive purchases abroad. The Imperial Army needed it all - rifles, cartridges, projectiles, high-quality industrial steel, non-ferrous metals, chemicals, modern machines. There was a shortage of communication equipment, and the transportation system could not stand the tremendously increased volume of traffic. As a result, during the war Russia's foreign debt increased by approximately 8 billion gold rubles.
>But it was not just about money; British industry could not cope with the orders from both her and Allied armies. Russian orders (through British intermediaries) were increasingly sent to the US market, which only exacerbated the problem of delivery of the ordered and paid-for goods. At the time of the Bolshevik revolution the United States had about 500,000 tonnes of goods ready to be shipped to Russia.
>>1018515
>>1018521
Another book anyone interested in the early war fuck ups and push to Moscow from a Soviet perspective will like.
The Viaz'ma Catastrophe, 1941: The Red Army's Disastrous Stand Against Operation Typhoon
https://mega.nz/#!4pNFXCCI!XBhGUZ_pdkhjpqCeiRi9lyh1-Z5JPp65azh8FuJhEnw
>>1018415
Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suite.
>>1018724
you are wrong, objectively, on every made up bullshit your white nationalist retarded polfag mind comes up with
get out fag
>>1018749
haha friend I was simply pointing out that many of the experienced officers of the Red Army came originally from the White, and they were the ones getting into a spot of bother in the early 40s :)
You seem to be somewhat rustled my friend, are you ok???
>>1015602
Identity Politics(yes that includes Nationalism) is retarded
Therefore the people who follow it aren't that bright.
>>1018641
> Lopukhovsky
Of course, anon. Let's add Suvorov's revelations to the list.
Very credible. Much sensation.
>>1020343
It's not a pop history book. His sources come largely from the Soviet archives, at least those unclassified at the time.
Perhaps read it before you make such dumb comments.
>>1018757
What's your argument? Russia was ill-prepared for both wars and the specific materials it lacked were roughly the same in '41 as they were in '14.
He was too busy shooting meth and micromanaging things he shouldn't have fucked with.
>>1018386
No, I mean they couldn't win at all. Even if they get a limited war with the Soviets (unlikely) and a Brest-Litovsk style victory over them, eventually the Americans win the air war anyway
http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm
and start bombing the crap out of Germany. Then when 1945 rolls around, they drop nukes. It would have been longer and WAY bloodier, but they'd still have lost.
>hurr why don't we just make crime illegal
>>1015648
Also, I'm pretty sure the French would fucking object.
>>1015602
>make some defense plans to keep all those sweet sweet little Aryan girls from being gang raped while he sat in his bunker and blew his own brains out?
>>1015758
PURE IDEOLOGY, MY GOD!
Seriously, this is something constantly underestimated, even by Neo-Nazis: Hitler actually believed the shit he spouted. He actually believed Jews were the source of and secret masters of Communism, among other things. The source of all communist agitation is the Jews.
More than that though, you cannot destroy Jewish Identity through social engineering, because Judaism is a biological, even metaphysical reality. The taint of Jewishness cannot be expunged. A Jew who appears identical to a German is simply a wolf in sheep's clothing. The holocaust wasn't an ancillary distraction from the war, it was a central war goal to both Hitler, and the German General Staff.
>>1015719
Is lend lease somehow worse than US invasion?
>>1021135
Not at all. But you're a fool if you think that if Hitler didn't declare war, Roosevelt would have stayed neutral. He was steadily and incrementally moving towards war, and the question was one of when, not if by that point.
>>1018566
>Demanding collateral from your ally during total war.
The Eternal Anglo strikes again!
>>1015602
>until Germany had overwhelming technological superiority
Until... forever?
The U-S of A was technologically superior in every aspect but rocketry.
>>1015625
Germany generally could only win a war if it was very, very quick and decisive. As in - by late 1941 USSR surrenders and UK gives up as well. That's assuming America wouldn't join the war at all. This is the only scenario where they could've win, but you can see how unpractical it was(Brits had no reason to surrender as they weren't in any danger thanks to Royal Navy having overwhelming superiority, Russians were relieved by winter fucking shit up for Germans and mobilisation being closer to being finished and US was dragged to war).
German economy was running on wartime routine since 1936, the country was saved from bankrupcy or the industry being snuffed by utter lack of resources several times, they needed peace and lower military spending that would free manpower and resources needed to get shit running again.
>>1015661
>Not invade the USSR until Britisn capitulated by continuing to focus on destroying the RAF instead of bombing civilians
British airplane industry was outproducing Germans. Also even if you would destroy the RAF you still have long months of building up force to repel Royal Navy with, drop your troops on British coasts and supply them. We're talking about numerous light ships and possibly several thousands of bombers.
You seem to not understand the naval superiority British had.
In Battleships alone, by 1941 they've had 2 Nelson Class and 2 King George V class battleships, both of which were comparable to the heaviest ships Germany had(Bismarck and Tirpitz) except Nelson was better armed(speed wouldn't play much role in the "battle of british coast"). Then you have like a dozen of older WW1 battleships and battlecruisiers which may have not been comparable to Bismarck, but could easily fight an even fight with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. The other battleship Germany had was a pre-dreadnought kept as training vessel.
Then you have overwhelming advantage in cruisers of all kinds, British destroyers were also both more numerous and better than German ones etc. etc.
I'm not counting aircraft carriers(which RN had but Kriegsmarine didn't) because nearby French/British airbases allow for air support by land-based aircraft.
The only class where they weren't outnumbered were submarines but English channel was to shallow for them to operate and by themselves submarines definitely aren't the kind of ships that could've been used in battle, they are too fragile for that.
To negate that kind of advantage you need I-don't-even-know-how-many airplanes or brand new heavy ships, but if they'd focus on building them, British intelligence would know it and far more numerous British shipyards would maintain their advantage.
>>1018354
>jet engine
British had jet fighter around the same time Germans had one but they didn't use it because jet engines are gas guzzlers and they mostly performed mission on enemy's territory with their fighters.
>>1018406
>jew were targeted for their wealth mainly, not because of some fairytale
The Rothschields that were put in camps received relatively lighter treatment, some other less iconic rich jewish families weren't bothered by nazis at all.
Hitler killed bunch of bottom-feeders and small shop owners.
>>1018529
In both situations the estimates were: they'll be a huge problem in few years. In 1914 it was 1917 in 1941 it was 1943. Before that point they were disorganised and their army, while huge, was in large part ill-prepared to any action.
>>1015625
If Stalin was somehow captured or assassinated and there was sufficient infighting to prevent the red army from coordinating an effective resistance, and the Germans gave them people good reasons to surrender, theoretically they could have won, but that's essentially it.
>>1025065
To be fair, the Germans were about 8 months ahead of the U.S. when it came to jet propulsion.
>>1025194
You know who had the first Jet Fighter?
The fucking Italians. It's a stupid benchmark.
>>1025170
Not that I even mean to in passing imply a sealion was feasible, but you're wrong about the cruiser quality.
Generally, German cruisers were considerably better armed than British cruisers.
County class cruisers had a main battery of 8 8" guns, a secondary battery of 4 4" guns, and a main belt of 110 mm
In contrast, Deutschland class vessels sported a half a dozen 11" guns as their main battery , 8 6" guns as their secondary, and had a mani armor belt of 140 mm thick. Now, they were slower, but that wouldn't mean much in a big gun brawl off the British coast.
Of course, the fact that the Germans only had 3 Deutschlands, 3 Adm Hippers, and 6 lighter cruisers (The Emden, 3 Konigsberg class, and 2 Leipzig class) over the entire war, whereas the British started the conflict with 13 county class, 2 York Class, 5 Hawkins class, and something like 20 C class means that the quantity advantage easily outweighs the quality advantage, but in fairness, the German cruisers were better than the British ones.
>>1015612
Well, he did ship them to Poland.
>>1015618
And rocketry was absolutely negligible in terms of wartime contribution
>>1015602
Why did he invade anything anyway? Like I wouldn't vote Trump if he said he was gonna invade Europe.
>>1026298
look up the concept of Lebensraum
>>1025468
>the German cruisers were better than the British ones.
So what? It's not like some sport where you can only fight ships in your class or you have to fight one on one.
>>1029346
And like I said, it wouldn't be enough, nor would the quality advantage be enough to overcome the quantity advantage the British held.
But that anon claimed that British cruisers were better than their German counterparts, which is simply false.
>>1015610
You're not using good logic.
Showing a chart that shows how the war changed everyones GDP and using that to explain what would happen to GDP if there was no war.
More fitting would be a graph of expected GDP increase over the war period if war hadn't taken place. That would be pretty hard to make accurate, I would think.
>>1030322
They were better at being cruisers. German cruisers were overgunned, slow, and had worse armor than British heavy cruisers except on the turrets.
>>1030346
28.5 knots is hardly "slow" (It's what the C class and most of the colony classes were doing), and they had better main belt armor, not worse.
>>1030371
Deutschland class did 25 knots and had 3 inch belt.
Colony class were light cruisers. They did 30+ knots and had slightly thicker belt armor than the Deutschland-class.
The C-class is also a light cruiser and it's from 1914.
>>1030346
>overgunned
This is a thing?
>>1030414
Yes? If you put an 18 inch gun on a destroyer, it's going to sink. If you put 11 inch guns on a 15k cruiser, it'll be less accurate, heavier, and just generally worse at being a ship. And all for the dubious benefit that having 11 inch guns will bring in some theoretical cruiser vs cruiser single combat.
>>1015602
Because Hitler was a moron that preferred to listen to his fee fees instead of any of his advisers who actually knew what they were talking about. There's far, far too many examples of this for me to list, literally look into any defeat or blunder the Germans made and you'll likely find Hitler being a retard behind it
>Dunkirk
>Yugoslavia
>Greece
>Moscow
>Stalingrad
>Kursk
>the Holocaust (lovely use of men and resources when you're trying to fight off an army swarming towards your borders, yes?)
