>As late as 1944, when the western allies were pushing into France, German leaders still pinned their hopes on a separate peace with the western allies so they could unite and together fight against communism.
What the fuck were they high on at the time?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
dtic.mil
twitter.com
you could ask this question at any point of their decisions from the time they marched into Czechoslovakia unto the end
certainly one has to wonder what was being smoked when they declared war on the US and the USSR in the same year
The Germans were fully aware of the consequences when the allies occupy Germany and find out about the atrocities in Europe and so on.
With a separate peace the nazi leadership could just hand over some pawns for punishment and continue being nazis.
Well, Hitler was in fact high most of the time by then.
>What the fuck were they high on at the time?
Uh, yeah.
They knew communism was the true evil
inb4 "not true communism"
No, nazism is absolute evil.
The Allies knew that.
Ideological blinders.
5 years of straight usage of crystal meth
They literally were. Hitler was a meth addict.
the answer is believing in having a common enemy
that is bolshevism
and the fact democracies dont do well in wars if the casualties are ramping up
france, holland, belgium, danmark, norway all collaborated with the nazis during occupation
their ideas were not considered completely insane at that time (for the populace)
however as usual, the eternal bongs clenched their buttocks in fear of losing MUH EMPIRE if germany survives
they lost it anyway, hehe
when you realize just how much amphetamine the nazis did a lot of things start to make sense
Odds are they truly and sincerely believed they were in the right and hence it was just a matter of a decent talk to clarify that to others.
Keep in mind Hitler kindda admired the English (and to some extent the Americans) and didn't _really_ want to fight them.
>Odds are they truly and sincerely believed they were in the right and hence it was just a matter of a decent talk to clarify that to others.
It's not like they were the only ones that hated communism you know
This would have happened if Dewey won the 1944 election. The Republican Party was filled with Nazi sympathizers who saw World War II (after Japan and Germany declared war) as merely necessary before getting to take on the Soviets.
Bolsheviks were seen as the common enemy, but Hitler managed to fuck that up and become "the evil to unite against".
In brief period of time when Goebells was fuhrer he sent the Soviet Union a communique begging for peace arguing that the third Reich would be a useful hedge for the USSR against "the degenerate western capitalists"
Might b cool.
That would have been quite the plot twist, an probably 20 million more dead soldiers
Obviously a very different perspective, to the Germans the ideological war with the USSR was the big priority, while they believed the war with the west was a "mistake" of sorts. They would the allies would see reason in that.
Anti-Communism was pretty significant in Europe, Hitler believed that if a separate peace can be brokered with the Western allies, then the true enemy can be focused on in the Soviet Union.
The Western allies had other plans, Churchill has been quoted numerous times of just sitting back and letting both the Germans and Communists bleed each other dry, so the Western Allies would only have an exhausted and near-beaten Soviet Union to kick down later.
But the Soviets showed no signs of weakening by the later stages of the war, keeping up the logistics and manpower to occupy and control Eastern Europe, so Churchill's hopes of exhausting the Soviets didn't pan out, and instead he drew up Operation Unthinkable, which was swiftly rejected.
tl;dr - Germany was hoping they could band with the allies to defeat Communism, the Western allies were more interested in Fascism and Communism killing each other first.
they invaded the USSR because of the Lebensraum (or whatever "living space" is called), and the natural resources. remember, Germany had no real source of oil.
they declared war on the US because their ally, Japan did. they wouldn't have if Japan wasn't at war with the US.
For a tenacious, creative, and steadfast guy, Churchill was pretty fucking dumb sometimes.
>an iron curtain would immediately fall on this huge territory, together with the vastness of the Soviet Union, and nations would be slaughtered behind it.
The Reich 25 Feb 1945 J. Goebbels
Nazism is bad, but only really bad for gays, kikes, niggers, etc.
If you're unlucky enough to be nonwhite, stupid enough to be the wrong faith or audacious enough to be french, you'll be fucked.
Communism will fuck you, whoever you are.
Nazism exploits, communism destroys.
I think they wanted Japan to declare war on the USSR by well, Declaring war against the USA, but Japan abided by the Soviet Treaty Surprisingly
>Nazism is bad, but only really bad for gays, kikes, niggers, etc.
>Confusing Nazism with Neonazism
Typical Veeky Forums
>Nazis gass gays and kikes
>"Nazis didn't hate them! Neonazis do!"
Hitler's BFF was a flaming homo degenerate.
It wasn't a "Nazi" thing, it was a European thing. The Brits castrated homosexuals chemically for a full on decade and a half after the end of WII (perhaps more if I'm not mistaken). Homosexuality wasn't a normal thing anywhere.
If you were smart you would hide your sexuality at the time everywhere, Germans just took a particularly stubborn approach to wiping what they considered filth in their country.
Jesus, why are you on a Veeky Forumstory board if you have such a tremendous lack of awareness?
>and the fact democracies dont do well in wars if the casualties are ramping up
Remind me again which state (collapsed) in ww1 when casualties ramped up, it was one of the democracies right?
>stupid enough to be the wrong faith
Nazis saw Judaism as racial, it didn't matter if you had been raised Christian as long as 1 of your 8 great grandparent were Jewish you were marked for death.
>Nazis saw Judaism as racial
Because it is. Or more accurately, Judaism is an ethno-religion. That's actually part of the founding tenets of the faith, it goes back to the original covenant between Abraham and God, and how all of Abraham's descendants and people shall be his Chosen so long as they keep to the covenant.
It is racial though. That's the whole reason Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years. If their religion was as open as Christianity or Islam they likely would not have been vilified as much.
>I think they wanted Japan to declare war on the USSR
Japan actually tried to push into Siberia but they failed
A major military defeat could have forced Allied leadership to consider separate peace, given how potential war against USSR was still considered to be a very likely outcome. That could have happened had the Ardennes offensive succeeded.
IMO best course of action was to finish operations in North Africa before Barbarossa. Red Army was clearly not capable to wage major offensive operations, so Axis would have been safe concentrating their manpower and material in North Africa, where taking of Suez and cutting off British supplies could have ended the war early on in Axis favor.
>A major military defeat could have forced Allied leadership to consider separate peace
What? Have you ever heard of things like the Casablanca conference?
> given how potential war against USSR was still considered to be a very likely outcome.
Please, show me a contemporary document pointing to this.
>That could have happened had the Ardennes offensive succeeded.
What? Even if the Ardennes offensive succeeds, and you get an actual split in the lines, it's not like the Germans can exploit it given their complete inability to do fair weather operations.
>IMO best course of action was to finish operations in North Africa before Barbarossa.
"Operations" in North Africa were primarily to preserve Cyrenica for as long as possible with a minimum of force. Given that you have 0 railroad tracks and an inability to reliably deliver supplies away from your air umbrella between Sicily and Tripoli, long term prospects in North Africa are extremely bad.
>. Red Army was clearly not capable to wage major offensive operations,
Only because they were off-balance from German offensives. As shortly into the war as Yelnya you have successful Soviet offensives, and pretty large scale ones at that.
>so Axis would have been safe concentrating their manpower and material in North Africa,
You can't "concentrate manpower and material" in North Africa. You have neither the transport capability to get it over there in less than years, nor the harborage to supply it even if you could get it across.
Please stop being retarded.
>what the fuck were they high on at the time
You've got to remember, user.
The Nazis were fucking retarded.
>The Republican party was filled with nazi sympathizers
>was
Lol Drmpf pissbabies btfo again. #imwithher
>What? Have you ever heard of things like the Casablanca conference?
Yes.
>
What? Even if the Ardennes offensive succeeds, and you get an actual split in the lines, it's not like the Germans can exploit it given their complete inability to do fair weather operations.
Losing a large amount of troops and equipment could have played a devastating effect, and in the wake of potential war against Soviets that could have swayed Allied leadership to negotiate with Germany. At least that was the rational of German leadership and such plan did have a slight, but still a chance of success.
>"Operations" in North Africa were primarily to preserve Cyrenica for as long as possible with a minimum of force. Given that you have 0 railroad tracks and an inability to reliably deliver supplies away from your air umbrella between Sicily and Tripoli, long term prospects in North Africa are extremely bad.
And that inability came from diverging of resources to Sea Lion and then Barbarossa. Control over Suez, again, would literally turn the course of war in Axis favor. not to mention that it would open way for even further advance into Allied colonies.
> You can't "concentrate manpower and material" in North Africa.
Yes you can. Von Luck described the main reason for inability to provide adequate supplies to Afrika Korps due to allied air superiority, which could have been negated if Luftwaffe was concentrated in Mediterranean, instead of Eastern and Northern Europe.
> The Nazis were fucking retarded.
Which is why they controlled most of Europe by 1941. Having said that, a lot of mistakes were made by German leadership, but calling it retarded just shows your lack of knowledge on the issue.
No, capitalism is absolute evil
The Commies knew that.
>What the fuck were they high on at the time?
Hitler was literally a meth junkie, so yeah
The ships that were available for Sealion had no way to get to the Mediterranean and there was no chance of building new shipping or the docks to make use of them in North Africa.
You're silly, the fact is just that the Germans had no ability to supply a large army overseas.
Also they had the Luftwaffe North because the British were bombing them.
Concentrating on NA, sure you improve the situation there. But at what cost?
Massive amounts of supplies were lost due to air attacks, in not debating that, but even in a best case scenario where the Germans somehow gain air superiority they still lack the tonnage to supply a significantly larger army.
You could recall the Italians as the best way to free up logistics for new German troops, but no matter what you do your max tonnage is well below what the Allies have available.
>If you're unlucky enough to be stupid
poor you :)
>Nazism exploits
The only talented economic managers were politically bland bureaucrats like Speer. The more you swallowed the party line, the worse you were. Keynes saved German
>Yes.
Then what part of commitment to unconditional surrender to all three of them are you having trouble with?
>At least that was the rational of German leadership and such plan did have a slight, but still a chance of success.
Not really, the mere belief of something in Hitler's mind does not in fact make it so.
>And that inability came from diverging of resources to Sea Lion and then Barbarossa.
How does commitment of resources to Sealion (which never actually happened) or Barbarossa make railroads appear, or make the local harbors more spacious?
>Control over Suez, again,
Is a pipe dream and would never happen even with maximum commitment.
> not to mention that it would open way for even further advance into Allied colonies.
It actually wouldn't, unless you have some way of breaking out past Aden, which is not an easy obstacle to get past.
> Von Luck described the main reason for inability to provide adequate supplies to Afrika Korps due to allied air superiority, which could have been negated if Luftwaffe was concentrated in Mediterranean,
If the Luftwaffe is concentrated in the Med..... Nothing actually changes. Your planes don't have the operational range to stray any further than they already did (hell, it was Italian planes, Gabbianos and Sparvieros, which did the bulk of the far-ranging in the Med, they have longer flight ranges) You could bring them to North Africa and move them as you go, but then you have to supply entire Luftflottes, and you don't have enough ports even if you can get your transports through.
Read this. dtic.mil
The problem wasn't ferrying shit over to North Africa. The problem was getting it out of Tripoli, where they had colossal stockpiles sitting useless.