Serious question...

Preemptive attack.

Stalin was dumbfounded when Hitler invaded. Guy spent like 3 days bawling in his room.

He wanted to kill communism.

Stalin's plan was to let the western "democracies" fight themselves to death in a war of attrition and strike while they were weak. That plan flew to shit when France fell.

The Soviets revealed their strategy in the film about the Teutonic Order invading Russia.

Their slogan was, 'LET THE WEDGE SET IN'

The Soviets' strategy was to have a huge counter attack, they prepared the West by destroying most of it preceding the war.

Hitler's tactics were influenced by this, that is, the Germans tried to feign their momentum toward Moscow, they tried to counter the Russian pincer by attacking the flanks (North and Ukraine).

Art thou jesting?
Conquering the USSR would've made Germany self-sulficient in natural rescources like oil, coal, natural gas and metal. It would've effectively allowed Germany to fight the allies for years.
It would've also realised some of the nazi's greatest ideological goals:
1) The destruction of the only communist power in the world
2) The immense landmass that would've allowed Hitler to enact lebensraum.

Because the whole point of National Socialism was expanding the Aryan domain. The reason for invading the Soviet Union was gaining Lebensraum for a rapidly expanding Aryan population. With the exception of Siberian Russians, slavs were considered untermensch. So their land was to be incorporated into the German Reich.

>I mean they couldn't really defeat Finland

That wasn't due to industrialisation problems.

See:
youtube.com/watch?v=xUl4C0VvN5k

>The French accidently staved off Western communism

don't give them too much credit, it would have [collapsed] on its own.

Still. At least western europe doesn't have commieblocks.

yeah, shame about the east though

hard for me to imagine a country that builds a wall on its borders to prevent people from getting OUT

>Daedelus

>At least western europe doesn't have commieblocks.

hmmm

The whole war was about preventing the spread of Communism into Germany (and by extent the terrorities around her). Everything, the interment of political prisoners, including the internment of the Jews (85-95℅ of the German communist party was Jewish, there was a clear association). Now you must understand that Communism at the time was a globalist ideology, one that stated their ideology of proletariats conquering their masters, would rule the world. It was all about spreading, and spreading it certainly did, even into Asia and South America.

Even before the war there was a massive red scare throughout Europe, that the Soviets were going to come down, sweep across Europe and occupy it under a Communist regime. During the war, despite the treaty, the Soviets were stacking troops and armor along the border of Europe. Hitler was advised of this and decided on a preemptive strike.

There must have been some legitimacy to the red scare, because what happened during and after the war? The Soviets swept down, conquered and occupied half of Europe under a Communist regime... Only stopped by the allies on the West half of Europe, which is what caused the Cold War (now you may have more speculation as to why the US entered the war in the first place, maybe they knew of the Soviet's plans as well and wanted to stop their spread into the rest of Europe).

The preemptive strike is what made Hitler seem the aggressor, but that was sort of his signature move. He seemed the aggressor against Poland as well even though that was about retaking German lands that were taken from Germany after WW1. His whole thing was strike before being struck and strike damn hard, the blitzkrieg, and it worked bretty gud I suppose until it was tried against the Soviets...

...

...

>it's another "Germany would have won WW2 if I was Führer" episode

Not built by commies :^)

I wish mods would ban historically illiterate people like this guy.

Damn, those commies even made it all the way to America!

Your Hapsburg is showing.

sure it would, because I wouldn't have started the war in the first place

>The whole war was about preventing the spread of Communism into Germany

Oh and due to revisionist history you may not know this. After the war the poor Jews made it seem like it was all about them and muh racism. Hitler actually was a German supremacist so that did play a role, but that's not uncommon. Most nationalities today think that their nation is the best, it's just strange to us in the West because we've been conditioned to hate ourselves. Although nationalism played a role, it wasn't the primary factor. Most of the rhetoric and propaganda for Germans to join the effort was anti-communist propaganda. The anti-jewish anti-degeneracy rhetoric was just icing on the cake, and served to promote a more healthy, strong Germany after the effort was over.

I sound like a sympathizer but trust me I'm not. I'm an American and love America (big surprise, guess I'm a supremacist) and I would have gone to war against Germany even if it meant laying down my life. What was done to the political prisoners in Germany, though I don't believe in holocaust-esque revisionist history, was against human dignity and needed to be stopped. However, I don't see why it's considered the biggest deal ever. It's not the worst thing to happen in human history. It's a very gray area, where I suppose some justification can be found. Whereas with the Mongol expansion campaigns they just genocided entire people because they liked the way a pile of skulls looked... That was done out of pure evil and clear Mongol supremacy, Germany's actions during WW2 were not nearly as bad. There are other examples as well, yet why is no one claiming the Assyrians should pay for what they did? Where are the lesson plans teaching people about the genocides committed by the Ottomans? The genocides committed by the Soviets, and other communist regimes such as the Cambodians? Much higher death tolls but much less attention in the media and in universities...

Victim of revision detected. Sad...

interesting, a real shame the Finns lost as much as they did simply from Russian aggression that they never got back

but I suppose things could have been a lot worse since they were able to maintain their independence after the war

You're a victim of lack of education. And comparing Mongols or Assyrians with Germans is pretty stupid. We are talking about completely different world. 20th century was a century of democratic countries, international law and Geneva convention. Trying to exterminate an entire ethnicity and enslave or kill millions of people in 20th century was rightfully seen as something incredibly evil.

>Jews
What about Lebensraum and the enslavement of Slavs? You know, Jews weren't the only victims of that war.

There's different types of charisma. An autist isn't gonna be smooth and suave and witty. But he very well can be passionate, forceful, aggressive and strong, all the things that people liked in Hitler's speech. In fact he was known for being able to lecture but not listen, speak at but not speak to, dominate not discuss, exactly the way I would describe a charismatic autist.

>muh "history is written by the victors"

>85-95℅ of the German communist party was Jewish
yea, it turns out that when you're socially and systematically oppressed, you're going to join the party that promotes equality.

>85-95℅ of the German communist party was Jewish
sauce? Sounds like bullshit.

I was quoting the other user, ask him. Either way, it's bullshit

>It was a different time! Therefore ethics do not apply when it's not white Europeans doing it!

Wow.

>Trying to justify applying modern morals to ancient societies

wew lad

Jews refuse to integrate, they wilfully remain a subculture and try to subvert the main culture of their host nations. They've been expelled from 109 nations since 250 AD for this reason, apparently they do it quite often.

It's true, there are plenty of readings I could cite but in the past revisionism acceptors immediately write them off. But that doesn't justify the fact that they used it as a means of association. Just because nearly the entire Communist party is Jewish doesn't mean every Jew is Communist.

It makes sense however that they supported Communism. It goes along with the idea explained in the Talmud of Jewish supremacy over other races. They enter a nation, take over banking establishments, then attempt to dominate through that. Communism streamlines that effort, they simply set themselves as the heads of the party initially, round up some useful idiots with propaganda literature, use them to seize the means of production and put the party in control of everything, then bam you're in control of everything. You know why they say "real communism/Marxism has never been tried?" It wasn't meant to succeed as written, it's so far only been used for power seeking groups, like the Jews, to seize control.

Know your history or you're doomed to repeat it. At this rate we're doomed to let the Jews succeed in their plot once again.

I'm trying to justify ancient morals in modern society actually.

Is there really anything wrong with seizing control of your nation through violent (perhaps unethical by modern standards) means when you have a clear foreign occupation?

>yet why is no one claiming the Assyrians should pay for what they did? Where are the lesson plans teaching people about the genocides committed by the Ottomans? The genocides committed by the Soviets, and other communist regimes such as the Cambodians?

Because we fought a war against Nazi Germany seventy years ago and not against the USSR, the Assyrians, or the Ottomans.

That's it.

I'd love to see one shred of evidence that Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, Luxemburg, Zinoviev, et. al didn't actually believe in Marxism but were just using it as a front to achieve Jewish control of the world, because I still haven't no matter how often I see it claimed. It'd be especially odd considering Judaism was persecuted just like Islam and Christianity under Communist regimes.

We didn't fight the Cambodians?

I think it has more to do with rhe occupation that affected them, now affecting us. There are a concerning amount of Jews in high places throughout universities and media outlets. If there were an attempt to create a propaganda machine, those would be the first places to seize.

>Judaism was persecuted just like Islam and Christianity under Communist regimes
Toward the end, Communism fell shortly after Jews began being persecuted.

And they were persecuted because the people wised up. For example in Ukraine they were harassed for having been found responsible for the Holodomor genocide of Ukrainians.

>It's true, there are plenty of readings
Name them and we'll see.

>Is there really anything wrong with seizing control of your nation through violent (perhaps unethical by modern standards) means when you have a clear foreign occupation?
Depends on how violently and what are you going to do with the nation.

Should just read

>We didn't fight the Communists?

The Cold War had more lasting and recent effects than WW2, yet there are far less movies about the perils caused by the spread of Communism which spanned multiple decades, compared to the speed of Nazism which lasted 5 years. The death toll is also significantly higher. Why are communists not demonized to the extent that nazis are?

>Name them and we'll see.
Ok.

>I'm only half joking.

What methodology did the author used, when he counted the jews in communist party?

Germany needed oil, metal and many other resources to keep on fighting. The Caucasus region had all that. Besides Hitler believed that war with the USSR was inevitable anyways so why not attack them by surprise and take the region they needed to survive.

You're retarted

It's obvious you're talking to kikes.They don't understand because that is their degenerate genotype

Germans are much easier to demonize, since they did their shit in Europe and their ideology is inherently against both Christian and modern European morals therefore evil.

Communists did not commited atrocities against people of western Europe neither there was such an interesting war against them.

So the Soviet Union would've invaded a few years later when it had greater industrial capacity. Fantastic.

One of the biggest reasons why he lost.
Any chance he got, he would put ideology before military

Did he say they were? Fascism/Nazism is anti-capitalist as well. It is viewed as a side of the materialist coin along with communism.

>Banking Capitalists

>who are also Communists

Wew lad!

It's simply a fact that Jews are and were hugely overrepresented in both sectors.

>So the Soviet Union would've invaded a few years later when it had greater industrial capacity.
You are forgetting that by the Barbarossa, Nazis controlled pretty much whole Europe. No way was Russia going to outproduce that.

Not the mention Russians suck on the offensive.

Exactly, the Soviets just used the war as a means to spread their borders. An attack on Europe was imminent.

It's getting ridiculous at this point. How can they not see the obvious?

What's more realistic, that I'm getting my information from a secret cabal of Nazis still surviving in Antarctica or that they're getting their information from Jews that actually exist in high places in media, lobbying groups, and the university system. I don't see any Nazis occupying those positions but I sure do see a lot of Jews, spreading a lot of influence to the point where you can't speculate on an Inuit igloo carving imageboard without tons of shabbos goyim jumping on you as if they were getting paid .75 cents per post to do it.

This isn't about racism or defending the actions of the Nazis, something fucky is going on and has been going on for centuries.

He was even waiting for the Politburo to come arrest him. Instead, Khruschev and Molotov IIRC asked him what to do

>Exactly, the Soviets just used the war as a means to spread their borders
>Germans reducing Leader-grads to ruins and getting few km before Moscow
Pick one

Nazi Europe was starved for resources. Economically it was going to end up as a basket case without constant war.

I'm sure the Soviets were going to attack after shooting all of their officers and with their front line military districts missing most of their weapons, all on the command of Stalin, an extremely cautious and calculating individual...

This is the right answer.

And as soon as you compare hitler to Pol pot or Mao they shift the goalpost to what Germany did to a 70,000 political prisoners compared to Mao who killed so many of his own people they literally lost count the Chinese government was heavily occupied by Jews at the time as well.

>Nazi Europe was starved for resources. Economically it was going to end up as a basket case without constant war.
Which ones exactely, oil? Couldn't get it from USSR through trade?

Is this a joke, or is American power-hour in full swing?

Are you saying taking a stand and going in to crush the fucking commies once and for all was a bad thing?

I think you just made less loathing of Hitler. Come to think of it he was the only man in history with the balls to physically fuck with the USSR.

Before war
>Guys the Soviets are coming to conquer and enslave half of Europe!!!
After war
>The Soviets conquered and enslaved half of Europe.

I see where you can claim they had no immediate plans for expansion, because we're not sure how much of a role the war played in their decision, but there's no denying Communism was a globalist ideology (they explicitly wanted to spread it to the entire world) and I think that gives great legitimately to the red scare.

Fuck off leaf

It had little to do with Communism, it was German teritorial expansion and ethnic cleansing of Slavs. Even Stalin replaced his propaganda with patriotic imagery.

>I think you just made less loathing of Hitler.
Stop pretending you don't have a raging boner for that guy.

Here's a video of actual former Nazis explaining why they went to war. I hear a lot of "fuck the commies" and literally nothing about Jews or Slavs.

youtu.be/LQdDnbXXn20

Is video evidence enough to override your doublethink?

>was a globalist ideology (they explicitly wanted to spread it to the entire world)
>Globalist

If that's how you define globalism than all ideologies are globalistic.

Here also is a recording of Hitler speaking with a reporter explaining what led up to the attack on the Soviets Union, proving my point in He states clearly that Soviet tank squadrons were stacking along the border of Europe preparing for an invasion.

youtu.be/pbUz2RemarI

Now can you fuck off, you're clearly revisionists. What the fuck shill university did you get your facts from? Looking forward to seeing how you try to counter clear video evidence.

The Jews are said to be "the tribe that runs the West". But if you are going to go that far, why stop there? Why not say that they also run the East? At which point they might as well run the North and the South too, while they are at it, or the entire solar system and galaxy, as they'd certainly be said to do if those making the accusations had ever heard of astronomy and astrophysics. And if you get that far it's only a short step further to say the Jews run the universe itself, which would be tantamount to regarding Jews as gods, as a race of divine beings! But the funniest thing of all in this absurd business, is that the central assumption in the conspiracy theorists' "accusations" is that claiming someone is powerful is an insult. That's how you realize the kind of resentful, vindictive scum you are dealing with, when you hear of such absurd bleatings.

Why do subhumans believe that claiming that someone is powerful is an insult? Because hatred of power — which is to say reaction to it — is the very essence of the existence of subhumans. The finger-pointing followed by the damning cry of "Power!" is their call to arms: the rallying cry that gathers together all the subhumans, like the cry of "Brains!" does to zombies in zombie apocalypse movies, and sets them loose on the destruction of whatever strong, healthy and proud human or group of humans has lately enraged them and provoked their fury. In our times, this may be the rich (the "capitalists"), the beautiful, the intelligent, the Americans or the Jews: any human group whatever that has turned out well, that has managed to distinguish itself and achieve something. And that is how, through their near-automatic, almost-instinctive opposition, the subhumans make it harder for those successful groups of people to become even more successful. Subhumans, in other words, as far as our planet is concerned, are the sentient component of ressentiment/reaction/reversibility.

>Here's a video...
Cool but literally irelevant. You are not from the theater where the Eastern front was on, are you?

>doublethink
Don't stuff cool neologisms, where they don't belong

>clearly revisionists
I am not the one trying to alter history to rehabilitate a murderous regime famalini.

Only thing it proves is terrible German intelligence. Hitler throught Russia is so weak, it can be conquered before Christmas. Why the hell would he expects such weak country to attack him?

>He states clearly that Soviet tank squadrons were stacking along the border of Europe preparing for an invasion.
Therefore Soviet tanks were stacked preparing for invasion? Nice thinking.

U fukin racist brah? You can replace every "Jew" with de white man argument blacks make.

So it's OK for Jews to do what they do because they're the strongest, then it must've been OK for the Nazis to do what they did as well. A system where the strongest lead, rather than the most popular ideology, is called fascism.

I support your notion, just don't backpedal when Holocaust 2: Electric Boogaloo rolls around.

This whole post is not an argument.

How the fuck is that perfectly relevant video irrelevant? It's honestly funny how you guys dance around clear facts.

Why would the commies be making so many tanks if they planned on staying within their borders and playing nice with the rest of the world?

Are you 12 years old that so happened to find a dictionary?Your statements conflict so hard

>How the fuck is that perfectly relevant video irrelevant?
anecdotal

>Why would the commies be making so many tanks if they planned on staying within their borders and playing nice with the rest of the world?
Stop moving goalposts. No one said they were going to play nice. Just that they were not planning to attack Reich any time soon.

>U fukin racist brah? You can replace every "Jew" with de white man argument blacks make.
Try to think clearly. If you substituted "White" for "Jew" in my post you would be stating the obvious/mainstream consensus, that Whites run the West.

>So it's OK for Jews to do what they do because they're the strongest, then it must've been OK for the Nazis to do what they did as well. A system where the strongest lead, rather than the most popular ideology, is called fascism.
Again think with clarity instead of retardation: "popular ideology", i.e. democracy, is the exact same thing, except where "the strongest" are those with the greatest numbers.

What does it say about the sheer inadequacy of Nazi philosophy that they were able to be steam-rolled by less "fascist" ideologies? So fuck your notions of Holocaust 2, globalism won't allow it. Globalism tolerates such fantasies, it keeps the retards content, but it won't allow them to become reality.

It's part of the richness and greatness of Western civilization that it can tolerate the existence of so many millions of losers and retards, while still forging full steam ahead with its goal without skipping a single beat. The degenerates call this steamroller effect of our culture — the marginalization of all groups not contributing to our culture's goal, and their reduction to clown- and freak-show status by our media — "social alienation", "materialism", "globalization", "desensitization", or any number of other nasty names; while between us it is known as simply "power".)

Heeb kikery at its finest here

Profit. He would have eventually anyway.

Hitler was totally cray

>Whites run the West.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Friendly reminder you are not on /pol/. Keep the shitposting, namecalling and cheerleading out of here.

Pretty much well, everything. I'd recommend reading Wages of Destruction, freely available online. If you are really interested in what resources I can quote passages from the book for you. They can trade with the USSR for it, but this will be on steadily deteriorating conditions over time as the USSR reforms its military...

The claim made was
"Exactly, the Soviets just used the war as a means to spread their borders. An attack on Europe was imminent."
An attack on Europe was not imminent, as the Soviets, outside of some neo-nazi fan fiction and propaganda, did not have plans for an attack into Europe in the immediate future of 1941, and this is what I have attempted to counter. Like any ideology, the Soviets were interested in spreading their own; this did not involve plans for an attack into Europe that was then pre-empted by a German counter-attack as Nazi propaganda sometimes likes to claim.

>The only man in history who achieved a significant expansion of the USSR and Communism in Europe
>Wow he was great
Hitler fucked with the USSR and got his dick chopped off for his pains, and single-handedly severed half of Europe to Communism. Why do you say anything appreciative about that?

>A Nazi propaganda video totally proves my point guize!
If I posted a video of Mao talking about how great a success the Great Leap Forwards was or Stalin about there being no famine in the Ukraine, you would rightfully condemn those as propaganda, yet a fucking Hitler speech is apparently factual.

>making an army indicates that Stalin planned to invade Europe RIGHT NOW. This army could have no other objective than invading Europe in 1941/42.
thanks lad

I recently read Anthony Beevors book on Stalingrad and what I got from that is that the war on the Ostfront had a crazy guy wanting oil and grain and on the other side a complete madman who was at times totally off his rocker.

Also I think it is generally accepted that Hitler expected the Russians to sue for peace pretty promptly and that they would offer the Germans huge concessions just like they did in WW1.

>Friendly reminder you are not on /pol/.

Could've fooled me, user. Play board police all you like, you're not going to get the /pol/ shitposters to go anywhere.

>Also I think it is generally accepted that Hitler expected the Russians to sue for peace pretty promptly and that they would offer the Germans huge concessions just like they did in WW1.
Interesting, but where are you getting that? Isn't commons consensus that Hitler wanted to drive Russians behind Ural?

Lol you're a massive faggot

Find me a Mao video where he says that in private

Because his whole end goal was the triumph of the German race and the extermination of sub-humans.

You can't look at things rationally. Hitler didn't have a rational goal. If he did, he never would have started WW2 in the first place. His advisors and economists were against it, with many correctly pointing out that that Germany was set to become a continental hegemon if they stayed on the peaceful path. Fuck, that's close to happening today despite this Germany being reduced to rubble and then partitioned for 45 years.

>including the internment of the Jews (85-95℅ of the German communist party was Jewish

you cant just make up bullshit statistics like that

>Chinese Jews

Wew lad! I just don't even...

Science!!!!