Who's worse/more delusional?

He did target Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians.

Targeting for class is severely worse than targeting for race.

Why?

Why not? Race is something tangible whereas class enemies are just people you don't like. In Maoist China or Pol Pot's Cambodia people got labeled bourgeois just for wearing glasses or owning a sofa.

Wehraboos since they're faggots who pride themselves on being the strongest when they lost their only war, kek.

I disagree with you, but I'm not sure why so I'll concede the point.

Best K:D ratio though.

Even the dumbest subhuman peasants can win over the supreme elite of humanity if they drown them in their dying bodies.

They had a good K/D ratio against the Soviets. That's hardly an accomplishment.

On the Western front, the Germans had about 2,000,000 more casualties than the Allies

Ameriboos are literally every single burger

...

Both are retards but from my own personal experience arguing with them I think Wehraboos are worse

I-I thought it was 20 million

>On the Western front, the Germans had about 2,000,000 more casualties than the Allies
source?

MacDonald, C (2005), The Last Offensive: The European Theater of Operations. Page 478. "Allied casualties from D-day to V–E totaled 766,294. American losses were 586,628, including 135,576 dead. The British, Canadians, French, and other allies in the west lost slightly over 60,000 dead".

[12] George C Marshall, Biennial reports of the Chief of Staff of the United States Army to the Secretary of War : 1 July 1939-30 June 1945. Washington, DC : Center of Military History, 1996. Page 202. US Army historian Charles B. MacDonald (The European Theater of Operations: The Last Offensive, Center of Military History, United States Army, Washington D.C., 1993, page 478)

Because the real troops were busy fighting in the east.

but if the Germans really were the amazing, advanced, god-tier army that they were, why would it matter?

>Some of the most elite formations like Liebestandarte, Das Reich and Lehr participate in the Western Front
>Not "Real troops"

K.

Not that guy but if you think the Wehrmacht the Americans faced in 1944 was on the same level as the Russians faced in 1941 then you're borderline retarded

Where did I say that? 1944 Germany was doing badly on both the East and Western Front, and especially in the East. Some of the most combat tested and elite formations at Germany's disposal were still fighting in the West, even if they were often only husks of what they used to be.

>religion
jews
christians
siberian buddhists
...

For the more honest brand of Wehraboos, I think this is based on the fact that the troops defending against Overlord were from static garrison troops, and definitely not the best the Germans had.

If your only conception of the late Western Front is D-Day, you can arrive at that conclusion.

Yeah, I'll give them that much. But it was only a few hours later that they were fighting actual opposition at Caen and its outskirts. Like you said/implied, it's really only limited to just the defense of the beach itself.

To go back to the other guy, if he had said something more along the lines of the Russians were fighting far larger forces on the Eastern Front, I'd give him that; it's true. However, how I interpreted what he said was referring to the quality of 1944 German forces on the western front vs. 1944 German forces on the eastern front. The first two I mentioned - LSSAH and Das Reich - had been fighting pretty much since the start of the war (Poland for LSSAH, France for Dash Reich), Lehr was made up of some of the most experienced veterans from every front (East, Italy, and North Africa), and I could also retrospectively throw in the three Fallschirmjager divisions also committed to the fighting, as well as the 2nd Panzer Division, which was one of the oldest in the Wehrmacht. None of these imply to me forces that weren't "real troops."

>religion
user.... Communists are fiercely anti religion, being faithful is subversion, and gets you reducated, sent to a work camp, or shot.

Germans killed a lot of people, but they always brought back cleaned plates and pots when they took them from grandma's home!

Leeaboos. The sort of guys who live in Yankee states but wave the CSA flag.

At the point where you are measuring intentionally murdering your own civilians, for thought crimes, or race, does it truly matter who killed more?
Both should be equally abhorrent.

It was 10-12 million.

Well, I still believe that Stalin's killings were much more "human".
He did not target people soley on race/ethnicity, but due to their convictions. It was simply an utilitarian standpoint, and easier to justify:
>This Ukrainians are nationalists, who try to prevent me from creating utopia, that is communism. They must be stopped and easiest way to do is to kill them. Coincidentally there are food shortages in Ukraine. Somebody's gonna go to bed without dinner!

than

>My race is the greatest and should posses land from here to Ural. Btw I really dislike these Jews, we will gas them all.

Also most of deaths under Stalin was "facultative". When you send someone to Gulag for 15 years, you simply not care if he is alive or dead. He's gonna work his ass off every day and if he comes home, he will still be a broken man, who thinks twice before stirring shit up.

Of course, he was still a psychopath and not in touch with reality, but slightly better than hitler.

And the German casualties?

They were both mass murderers to their own people, and should be equally vilified.
As an example.
Is killing a black man for being black worse then killing a white man for being a conservative, or even because you think he might be one?
I would say they are both equally abhorrent positions.

the [12] is the source for the German casualties