Loses not one, but two world wars in a row

>triumphant 19th century german philosophy, music and science
>destroy the country with a war
>culturally rich weimar republic
>some of the best midwar scientists
>destroy country in another war

Contrary to popular memes, the germans are great culturalists and natural philosophers, but they are shit at war.

although,
captcha: GmbH mezzi

That's funny, because last time I checked Britain, the worlds largest empire, were not defeated.

>most of europe

Europe extends to the Urals :^)

Ww2 they were beat by Russian bodies and American industry, Russia was supplied industrially by the lend lease from the US after everything west of Moscow was razed

Seriously why is the importance of lend lease lost on so many peiple. So sick of hearing "hurr Russia beat Germany fair and square"

>world war one
Germany and Austro-Hungary versus France, Russia, U.K, Japan, Belgium, Serbia, and Montenegro

>world war two
Belgium, France, Norway, U.K, Soviet Union, Luxembourg, China, Poland, Canada, Australia, and US versus Germany, Japan, Finland, and Romania

>world war one
Germany and Austro-Hungary versus France, Russia, U.K, Japan, Belgium, Serbia, Montenegro, and Italy

>world war two
Belgium, France, Norway, U.K, Soviet Union, Luxembourg, China, Poland, Canada, Australia, and US versus Germany, Japan, Finland, and Romania

>Germany and Austro-Hungary versus France, Russia, U.K, Japan, Belgium, Serbia, and Montenegro

No, try again.

>Belgium, France, Norway, U.K, Soviet Union, Luxembourg, China, Poland, Canada, Australia, and US versus Germany, Japan, Finland, and Romania

No. Try again.

>" Russia was supplied industrially by the lend lease from the US after everything west of Moscow was razed"
>"lend lease is a meme"

Aaah extermism, the folly of fools.

...

I left out minor countries

Your comment makes no sense and indicates nothing. "Lend lease is a meme" what?

>Montenegro

clearly one of the greats

>I left out minor countries
No. Try again.

Lend lease constituted a very important part of the 1941-1942 soviet ability to supply their army, but russia wasn't "supplied industrially by the lend lease from the US after everything west of Moscow was razed"

> you can tell this guy is smart by the way he confidently and flatly denies there's any truth to user's claims
> you can tell he has a lot of knowledge by his ambiguity and disinterest to even attempt or put energy into refuting the claim

It's a fucking angolan sandwriting board. I can't be arsed to correct someone who doesn't even know what the ottomon empire or fascist italy is, yet includes BELGIUM

>all locomotives used by russia were lend lease
>half their logistical capability came from the US

...

>In total, 92.7% of the wartime production of railroad equipment by the Soviet Union was supplied under Lend-Lease,[24] including 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars[27] which augmented the existing prewar stocks of at least 20,000 locomotives and half a million railcars.[28]

>Furthermore, the logistical support of the Soviet military was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed, by 1945, nearly a third of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge ¾ ton and Studebaker 2½ ton were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations, and clothing were also critical.[29]

>Lend-Lease also supplied significant amounts of weapons and ammunition. The Soviet air force received 18,700 aircraft, which amounted to about 30% of Soviet wartime aircraft production.[24] And while most tank units were equipped with Soviet-built models, some 7,000 Lend-Lease tanks were deployed by the Red Army.

>According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Lend-Lease played a crucial role in winning the war:

>On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR’s emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany’s might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.

Aaah, retardation. A fools folly

>loses both world wars
>still rules Europe in the end
other european powers are you even trying?

Germany instigated by building up their Navy, practicing for the war, souring relationships with other countries etc., and by declaring war on Belgium and backing up Austria Hungary when they mistakenly went to war with serbia. Everyone knew that germany was preparing for an offensive two front war, no one really wanted it except for the Germans

Le epic Rothschild-may may xD xD

>declaring war on Belgium
See the Schleifen plan, they didn't invade Belgium for shits and giggles
> backing up Austria Hungary
There was no fucking question they were going to do that no matter what happened, the countries were bffs and they had a written unbreakable alliance
> only Germany wanted war
Holy shit nearly every single country was enthusiastic to go to war in ww1, not least of which the French. Plus the Germans only mobilized early because they saw the direction shit was going.

Are you fresh out of high school? Where do you get this one sided nonsense?

Not an argument shitter

Anyone with half a brain knows how powerful the bankers have been

>Germany, almost alone, vs. meme allies.
>4 fucking years each.

>In World War One they were beat by the French and Russians
>Beaten by the French
The Western Allies says hi
>And Russians
Knocked out of the fucking war.

>See the Schleifen plan, they didn't invade Belgium for shits and giggles
And what kind of excuse is that? They violated a treaty they themselves signed calling it a scrap of paper.

>are you fresh out of high school?
Not even that guy, but can you stop with these ad hominem?

>Not even that guy, but can you stop with these ad hominem?
>Germany was the only one who wanted war!
Pretty childish belief all things considered.

Especially with Russia going YES WE CAN NOW UNITE THE SLAVS AND SMASH AUSTRIA HUNGARY and French going FINALLY REVENGE FOR MUH 1871! MUH 18711111!!!!

Germans are a meme nation. HRE wasn't Germany, Prussia also wasn't Germany. The German nation was literally invented in 19th century. Because of that they had a huge inferiority complex with some delusions of grandeur (we wuz cherusci, we wuz emperors and shit).

>Belgium is more Important than the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria

>Canada, Australia, New Zealand given independance willingly, remain close allies of Britain in ww2
>Africa Decolonized as it was too expensive
>India given independance out of popular demand
>Britain comes out of this as the 5th biggest economy
>hurr durr u lost

Germany and Austria-Hungary are the most responsible for this war. Then maybe Russia. France and the UK did not want any war.

>worlds largest empire
>5th biggest economy

We decreased in influence and power. We never lost.

you lost when the bank of england came about

Just like everyone in Europe was? It was the fucking 19th Century for gods sakes. Everyone in Europe was beginning to see themselves as some sort of nation state and retard tier nationalism was in vogue.
>French
WE WUZ GAULS N SHIET. FRENCH NATION EXISTED EVER SINCE. WE WUZ OF FREEDOMS AND DEMOCRACY. EVEN IF WE REVIVED A MONARCHY TWICE!
>Britain
WE WUZ CELTS
WE WUZ ISRAEL!
MUH BOUDICCA IS A BRITISH QUEEN.
>Balkans & Carpathians
Good lord, where to even fucking begi-
WE WUZ ILLYRIANS N SHIET
WE WUZ TURKICS N
WE WUZ MACEDONIANS
WE WUZ ROMANIANS N SHIET
NO SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU'RE HUNGARIANS.
>Russia
WE WUZ SCYTHIANS
WE WUZ SARMATAI
ALL SLAVS MUST BELONG TO ONE NATION. UKRAINE ISNT REAL! BELARUS ISNT REAL!
YO, YOU GUYS THERE IN CHINA ARE TURKICS. YOU MUST BE ONE WITH TURAN. WHO IS UNDER THE RUSSIAN PROTECTION.

No it was the kikes in Britain organizing a an alliance between France and Russia (why did that alliance occur?????????) and then baiting war however they could, this way through ethnic tension in east Europe.

Why was Britain even fucking involved with a conflict involving Serbian nationalists? France??? Russia I can sort of vaguely see but Germany was clearly going to back up their brother empire.

Think about how silly the whole war was then you see the entangling sinister alliances of the kikes, ww1 was no accident.

>UKRAINE ISNT REAL! BELARUS ISNT REAL!
That's literally true. Both were invented in late 19th century. Hell, Belarusians still want to be more Russian than the Russians themselves.

>French
>Britain
But that's irrelevant. Britain was already the most powerful empire in the world and French culture was dominant in Europe. And then comes Germany with their shitty inferiority complex and without a real country before 1871.
The Germans themselves thought they are super special with their Sonderweg nonsense.

daily reminder to ask yourself if Israel would exist today without the topic at hand to determine if fuckery occurred

>Why was Britain even fucking involved with a conflict involving Serbian nationalists? France???
You need to read more.

>Why was Britain even fucking involved with a conflict involving Serbian nationalists?

go vote, amerifag

Germany didn't overextend that much in WWII. At least they didn't until they invaded the USSR and the war kicked up about fifty gorillion notches.

Hitler achieved in two years what Napoleon needed nine years to do. That's pretty impressive even if you hate the guy.

>Hitler achieved in two years what Napoleon needed nine years to do. That's pretty impressive even if you hate the guy.

Hitler achieved nothing sustainable, prior to his Russian invasion, unlike what Napoleon did.

Besides, Hitler had cars.

Napoleon achieved much more. Hitler's influence is purely negative. Napoleonic and revolutionary ideas and laws spread throughout Europe and completely changed it.

>this thread

posting from america should be a bannable offense desu

>Hitler's influence is purely negative
it was so negative that ukranian civilians were retreating with the germans once the war went south

How was the Nazi empire pre-Barbarossa unsustainable? Any dissent would've been met with such overwhelming force that the French or Dutch wouldn't have dared to do anything major a la Warsaw in 1944.

Napoleon's legacy wasn't really apparent until a hundred years after this death, I'd say. Sure, Napoleonic code of law is pretty cool, but Hitler and the Nazis had a great deal of influence as well. See: American right-wing movements and unironic Ukrainian fascists.

You were yelling some nonsense about Germany being worthless because they are an "artificial nation," froggy prezswalski, so i merely pointed out how almost everyone was.
>Britain was already the most powerful empire
Not a nation, but a monarchy unifying 3 kingdoms.
>France
Literally forced nation-state after the French Revolution went around trying to make all of France Paris-style French.
>Britain can be proud of muh empire. France could be proud of le dominant culture.
Ok, they could. So can 1870 Germany can be proud of rapid industrialization overtaking Britain in Manufacturing and defeating Austria, France, and other states in war. Why cant they be proud of that?

Its like crapping on Americans because they are "LOLOLOL YOUNG NATION, NO CULTURE." Fuck your noise.
>The Germans themselves thought they are super special with their Sonderweg nonsense.
>ITT: Terms I do not understand.
Sonderweg was a Historiographic term. Sonderweg indeed means "special way." Also means "special" "alone" "particular" "separate" way. And it wasnt about Muh Master Race tier bullshit.

Initially it was used by Imperial Germans and cunts in Austria-Hungary to explain how they managed to escape 1848, prevailing European liberalism, and retain old-style European
"autocracy."

Currently the historiographic term is used in the Western German definitiin: how Germany had a different path towards democracy after titanic amounts of autocracy.

>How was the Nazi empire pre-Barbarossa unsustainable?
economically

>muh third reich economy being dependent on war meme

It is negative. Hitler and the Nazis are remembered as the biggest mistake in world's history. The modern tolerant, global, international Western world is the exact opposite of everything Hitler believed in. Things that were common and accepted before the war like eugenics or racism are now considered evil and unethical.
Even the term 'race' is considered outdated now.

>How was the Nazi empire pre-Barbarossa unsustainable?

After the initial loot of France, Belgium and other nations, the occupation costs slowly began to outweigh the revenue they generated - or at least started to become a big concern.

Germany imported most of it's resources, much of it from Soviet Union. That was an alliance that was simply not meant to last. If Germany had not broken it, the Soviets would have eventually.

From day one of the war, heavy rationing of food and consumer goods was put in place - a state that could not go on forever. With no access to the sea, and absolutely no prospects of gaining naval superiorety, no major imports could be done from overseas.

You write like a 15 yr old. Leave this board.

Nerds are usually smart and can't fight.

>Germany confirmed for nerd nation

>Literally forced nation-state after the French Revolution
Literally a centralized state for most of its history unlike >H>R>E
>Why cant they be proud of that?
But that's only a small part of their nationalism. Read some Arndt, Jahn or Fichte.

>"The Germans have not been bastardized by foreign peoples, have not become half-breeds, they more than many other peoples have remained in their native state of purity."

These kind of 'volkish' ideas were common among students and teachers.

>Initially it was used by Imperial Germans and cunts in Austria-Hungary to explain how they managed to escape 1848, prevailing European liberalism, and retain old-style European
"autocracy."
Implying that the German system was superior to both Russian autocracy and Western liberalism.

>Literally a centralized state for most of its history unlike >H>R>E
You mean the late 1500s-1700s? Medieval France had little to separate itself from HRE. A fucking king surrounded by lip-service paying lords. In addition to all those vassals to whatever house rules in England.
>But that's only a small part of their nationalism. Read some Arndt, Jahn or Fichte.
>"here let me mention another small part of their nationalism."

>Implying that the German system was superior to both Russian autocracy and Western liberalism.
I don't give a shit about your opinions. I merely explained to you what Sonderweg was. It wasn't about Germany being speshul. It is Germany being different. Sonderweg was used positively by the cunts who like the status quo and negatively by librul Germans of the time.

Hitler and the Nazis were /pol/r9k/ tier. Imagine retards like that ruling a country.
>economy? administration? education?
lol, who cares? Look at our cool uniforms and AESTHETICS! We fucking Rome now!

>The Germans realized the value of this in both World Wars, but were led by retards in both.
All continental powers realised this. In WW1 all continental powers had offensive planning. We just don't hear much about it because their offensives didn't make it as far as the German one.

Also I'd argue that the German military was fairly competent in both world wars. In WW1 more so than in WW2 arguably. The problem is that you can't win a war of such scale through military means alone. You need to be able to convert your military successes politically, and Germany has always failed at that. Not to mention that the geo-strategic situation has always been quite bad for Germany given the location in the middle of Europe with no natural defences.

>Germany instigated by building up their Navy, practicing for the war
Germany built a navy that was supposed to have 2/3rd the size of the royal navy. The documents for this planning exist and are easily visible to everyone. From the very beginning it was meant to have purely defensive purposes. It was never meant to threaten Britain it was meant to provide a defence for their oversea territory.

On the other hand Britain had a two-power standard, meaning that the royal navy had to have two times the size of the largest continental fleet. This is what set of the supposed "arms race".

>backing up Austria Hungary when they mistakenly went to war with serbia
They had a very good reason for backing up Austria-Hungary. You do realise that Serbia was pretty much regarded a rogue-state back then? It was seen as a haven of terrorists that had to be pacified.

>And then comes Germany with their shitty inferiority complex and without a real country before 1871.
And ever since then they've been dominant in Europe. Sounds like you've got the inferiority complex here.

The bulk of the German army was defeated by the Russians, not Americans.

You merely forgot to mention that the Lend-Lease was accounted for only 7-12% of all the resources which the Russians had to rely on in World War II, it's basically nothing in comparison to domestic production.

Even then, Lend-Lease equipment wouldn't reach the USSR in mass quantities until '43 at the earliest due to closed naval shipping through Japanese and German patrolled waterways along with Arkhangelsk freezing over during the winter months. Though it indeed influenced the recovery rate for the Soviets, it played a minor role in the war in the East.

> Seriously why is the importance
Because only Americans are idiotic enough to push the belief that it mattered.

I repeat, it's still encompassed 7-12% of all the resources they've used and for the record, Sokolov specializes in social anthropology, his knowledge of World War II is "basic" at best.

The German Reich was running out of hard currencies and had serious problems with liquidity. Hitler needed either to drastically cut spending and introduce austerity measures or find some territory to plunder and pay for his insane economic policy.

That only goes for post-Yalta Germany, mainly the non-Soviet part.

>Why was Britain even fucking involved with a conflict involving Serbian nationalists?

Nigga u dum

Go back to /pol/ and jerk yourself silly

>another ebin Germany hate thread xDDDD
Don't you guys get bored of posting the same thing over and over?

>French going FINALLY REVENGE FOR MUH 1871! MUH 18711111!!!!
The revanchist party in the French Parliament gathered only 5% of the seats in 1914. So tell me again how France was stomping its feet for revenge?

>in WWI they were best by the French and Russians

C'mon, I know Veeky Forums hates the Eternal Anglo but are you really trying to say that Russia helped more for the Allies in WWI than Britain?

>World War One they were beat by the French and Russians and in World War Two they were beat by the Russians
France was a spent force after 1917 mutinies, Russia was knocked out by Revolution
It was the British with their naval blockade and huge manpower reserve of Americans and British Empire that won the WW1
Russians only won WW2 because of Western Allied help of starving the German economy by Strategic Bombing and making them exhaust themselves by opening new fronts.
If Russians would face the 100% of the German war effort, they would lose.

Veeky Forums is always the same, though I have to admit that the viking hate threads have become less