Post things that wehraboos and stormcucks say that make you laugh. I'll start.
>Germany could have won WW2 if it wasn't for the Russian Winter
>The Tiger was amazing and the best tank of WW2
>The Sherman was a terrible tank that was only useful because of large numbers
>the Wehrmacht was the most modern army of its time
>Germany would have won if Hitler didn't do X
Bonus points when the thing they suggest that Hitler do instead is absolutely retarded.
HAHAHA im so happy that the fucking international jewry won AHAHAHAHA fucking stormcucks AHAHAHAHAHA
>trying to take away the good feeling one person gets when he learns that they could've indeed won the war had they done it a little bit differently
They were fightinf a war to install a system that would systematically murder millions upon millions of innocent people
So are you saying it's impossible for Germany to win?
>the fucking international jewry
So international germanry is better?
>[logistically impossible claim about the holocaust that no reputable scholar makes] is logistically impossible, therefore the holohoax didn't happen!
t. (((infographic)))
I think it's impossible for Germany to win in any sort of way that's WW2 in a way recognizable to us sitting here in 2017. Germany had, in addition to the purely operational problems of several enemies as major powers, all of whom whose vitals are out of her reach, no realistic means of parlaying early military victories into political concessions. Hitler burned a lot of bridges in order to do things like rearm and take the territorial concessions he got before open war broke out in 39.
To posit a WW2 that's winnable for Germany, you'd have to alter the underlying political reality of Europe probably going back to at least the immediate aftermath of the Versailles treaty, if not even further, and by that point, it becomes very hard to predict anything at all.
>Hitler's Germany is in any way a true successor to Prussia
Makes me sick and I have to constantly clarify my Prussiabooism with assurances that I'm not a Nazi.
yes
wehraboo at one time was a valid term that got corrupted by butthurt revisionists.
i use stormfag instead because i don't want to be lumped in with people who think the STG-44 was german propaganda or that the Tiger was made of cardboard. Wehraboo used to mean Wehrmacht apologist and nothing more.
So what if Germany had less enemies? What if they did not start a war with Russia and became communist after the invasion of Poland to be more friendly with the Soviets?
Ahh, but Germany having less enemies requires an enormously different foreign policy and political posturing leading up to the war. By the time war has started, it's enormously too late.
>What if they did not start a war with Russia
If you assume a point of divergence in mid 1941, they're still in deep trouble. Even assuming that Stalin neither invades, uses economic leveraging to cripple him, or that the German economy won't collapse without it, you've got purely military problems. The window to knock Britain out of the war has come and gone. America is openly aiding the English, and will probably directly enter the war in Europe at some point, even if you don't declare war on them. While an invasion of France or elsewhere in northern Europe isn't in the cards without the Soviets, the air war is likely to go on, in fact intensify without competing need for land forces and air support for land forces. Come 1945, it'll go nuclear, and then you have a problema muy grande.
> became communist after the invasion of Poland to be more friendly with the Soviets?
Given that one of the core principles of the National Socialist party was opposition to "Judeo-Bolshevism", I somehow don't think that's a plausible alternative, nor do I think mere Soviet noninvolvement is either assured by such (Stalin was perfectly willing to crush other "Communist" nations), nor a route to victory. (That whole nukes thing again).
I have never read that statement, if i did, i would certainly be enraged.
So if Germany had nukes would that be enough?
I'm honestly not sure how you came to that conclusion. Please, for my own edification, how did you get from what I said to your rather unintuitive conclusion?
No el otro hispano but, the nukes arrived too late for the european war, the fate of Germany was decided when he tried to negotiate with UK instead of destroy it when have air superiority
>the fate of Germany was decided when he tried to negotiate with UK instead of destroy it when have air superiority
It's not like Germany could have destroyed the UK with air power. Look at how much bombing was done on Germany, and it neither broke their morale nor prevented increases in war production, merely stopped it from being larger than historically was.
The Luftwaffe had no means of delivering nearly as much bomb tonnage over Britain as the combined British and Americans dropped on Germany. They never would have broken the UK.
Germany could have won if Hitler wasn't fucking autistic and just focused on slapping Stalin's shit instead of picking a fight with the three strongest nations on earth reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
yes
>So you admit Germany could've won if WWII was nothing like WWII?
Just stop.
They could have used gas as the British plan to do if Germany disembarked
>being ruled by the eternal kraut
I'd take the Jews any day, desu.
If Hitler had just chilled for a while after coming to power, the USSR would probably have sperged out and WW2 would have been everyone stomping communists.
user, the Soviets only started expanding because Hitler promised them a free hand. I'm not going to pretend Stalin was a saint, but he was a cautious, risk-averse political leader, and one concerned primarily with opportunism and main chance. He would not have started attacking randomly for precisely the same reason he kept his agreements with the Allies post-WW2, the risk was too great.
You said that the US would have entered the war and nuked Germany, so if Germany has nukes for MAD or to wipe out the British then they could win.
There is no way in which Germany will fight against the USSR without annexing Poland, the allies wanted the fascism as a buffer of communism but dont want they defeat each others
What if Germany does not want to fight Russians but punish the western powers for ww1?
URSS would invade Germany anyway, Barbarossa was a preventive attack
what if hitler and stalin were gay lovers
MAD is centered around an idea that you can deliver enough nuclear power, on a secondary strike (i.e., when most of your own arsenal has been destroyed on the ground) to devastate an enemy country, because ICBMS and similar missiles cannot be practically intercepted.
None of that would apply to a theoretical German nuke. They don't have a missile that can carry something as bulky as an atomic weapon. They don't have air superiority, or, for that matter, a 4 engine bomber that can deliver it. And even if they did have all of that, they don't have access to significant deposits of uranium that were known to exist at the time. It is also ignoring the fact that 1st generation nukes of WW2 are enormously less powerful than hydrogen bombs that MAD is predicated upon.
If Germany did somehow get their hands on a nuke, they would get a hell of a lot more back in return. It would not cripple the Allies, or even the UK. Hell, it probably wouldn't even be enough to completely destroy a single major British city (London most likely). They got the trains running again in Hiroshima 2 days after the bombing, and that was with a crippled Japan under blockade and near starvation and with far less of an industrial base to work with.
[citation needed]
Suvarov doesn't count as a citation.
To stop Germany won't you have to also nuke France and Paris? I doubt the post war world would be friendly to America and England. Also why was the Soviet Union not nuked before they got nukes?
The German historian Klaus Hildebrand in an article in 1987 claimed that Stalin did not trust Hitler and vice versa.
Both countries were making preparations to invade each other in 1941, the question is who would dare to attack first.
The Israeli historian Martin van Creveld believes that the USSR did not intend to attack until fall 1941 as soon.
According to this theory, the Soviet Union hoped that Germany would launch itself in the invasion of Great Britain to attack from the back.
It should also be noted that with all of the USSR it had the largest army of all in 1941 and Hitler was concerned that the Soviets had time to arm themselves, which would fuel the threat over time.
Mikhail Meltyukhov postulates in "Stalin's lost opportunity" that the idea of attacking Germany had already been brewing long before May 1941, which was the basis of a military plan that lasted between 1940-1941. A fact in favor is that no defensive plans of this period have been found.
Mark Solonin indicates that there would be several variations of the plan in August of 1940 for the disposal of Soviet units in its western border according to "considerations of strategic offensive deployment".
>1942
wtf I hate towns now
If Stalin did that and Hitler was caught off guard and decided to sue for peace what would Stalin ask for?
>To stop Germany won't you have to also nuke France and Paris?
Why would you?
>Also why was the Soviet Union not nuked before they got nukes?
Why start WW3?
First off, none of that is a citation, it's speculation from various historians. And you have other prominent historians, like Glantz or Gorodetsky or Isayev who claim the exact opposite, that Stalin had neither the means nor the desire to go launching a headlong risky assault that he was badly prepared for.
>It should also be noted that with all of the USSR it had the largest army of all in 1941
What's that got to do with anything? The RAF was the biggest air force in the world in 1938. Clearly Britain was planning on a war with Germany while giving Hitler free reign over the Sudetenland.
>A fact in favor is that no defensive plans of this period have been found.
There were also no defensive plans of the period for the border clashes with Japan around Manchuria. Nonetheless, they were defensive in strategic scope; some of this had to do with a huge cult of the offense among the Soviet military for reasons largely ideological. Defensive preparations were "Defeatist" and could get you into trouble, especially in the post-purge environment.
Because German troops are occupying France and the Germans can move many of their people and industries to France to hold it hostage.
>Germans can move many of their people and industries to France to hold it hostage
no that is not how real life works
Are you seriously suggesting that the bulk of the German nation up and move to Paris?
Not just Paris but France in general, do what the migrants are doing in the modern day.
Migrants in the present day don't move 70 million at a time in the middle of a war and take the industry of cities with them.
This. Germs aren't even human.
The Wehrmacht was the most advanced army of the time tho.
Combined Arms, tactical doctrine focused on flexibility and decision making on the front and a squad centered around the MG put them far ahead of any other army, at least at the start of the war.
>holocaust never happened
>Hitler was very accepting of blacks and non-whites
>Hitler was socialist
>you don't understand fascism
Friendly reminder that (1) the holohoax nevver happened and that it was (2) the greatest thing ever
>stop hurting my feelings the post
I hope you get raped by black man and a Jew watches in pleasure, stormnigger
How is it better exactly?
It's not so much a statement as it is a core thought of being a Nazi because the Nazis adopted so much veneration of Prussian figures and symbols to legitimize themselves. Hitler trying to portray himself as the natural successor of Frederick the Great, for instance.
>Germany would have won if Hitler didn't do X
How is this specifically wehraboo?
There's plenty of people who think like this but don't admire the Nazis at all.
It's mostly people with a simplistic understanding of WWII that say this.
Also, shit thread.
>Versailles was too harsh on Germany and French revanchism led to WW2
And the British planed to be gassed and would have returned the favor.
The Germans could not beat England without a miracle.
>Wehrmacht
>combined arms
haha I love revisionist history
Lmaoing at you strormcucks.
its your fault for letting the jews win.My country didint get jew's and we still got your lands!
>20% of the Wehrmacht was motorized at their peak
>combined arms tactics
Who needs infographs when you use memes as your source
Do it again, Bomber Harris!
and that is where you are wrong
he could've knocked out britain with a more focused north afrika and with the forces of barbarossa he could've
just replace like 2 italian divisions with germans and no declaration of war against the us and they are much likely to be forced against the negotiating table
>murder innocents
>tell the murderer to stop
>he says no
>shoot murderer
>in his dying breath he screams
>WOW WHAT THE FUCK I BET YOU'RE HAPPY THE INNOCENT WON THIS ONE DICKHEAD
>laugh as he chokes on his own blood
Fuck off hans
>schizophrenic frenchposters back at it again
how does that jewish cock taste?
haha Germany has never made a good descision
>he could've knocked out britain with a more focused north afrika
Nah, not really.
>just replace like 2 italian divisions with germans
And watch them run out of food and fuel because you have no supply infrastructure in Libya?
ah yes the famous "muh supply" and logistics argument
u seriously think that with the force of barbarossa they wouldn't have solved the supply problem? by possibly taking malta is just one
>ah yes the famous "muh supply" and logistics argument
aka "reality"
You are an idiot.
dtic.mil
The problem isn't Malta, the problem is that your only port that you can defend supply deliveries to over the water is in Tripoli, and you want to then, by road (because you have no alternatives) drive all your stuff all the way to Tobruk, to Alexandria, to Suez if you can push that far.
And trying to move supplies through the desert by motorized transport is like the tyranny of the rocket. Adding more trucks doesn't help you all that much, because more and more of the supply needs go to maintaining your truck fleet. And the longer the distance, the worse it gets.
You can't GET the force of Barbarossa down there, even if you could transport it (already an impossibility unless you w ant to spend about a decade ferrying guys from Sicily), and if you did, you don't have enough harborage to supply them in Tripoli itself, nevermind project force anywhere.
rommel got to fucking el alamein and nearly won.
idiot
what makes you think that with a boosted force not the whole fucking barbarossa force obviously he wouldnt have reached suez and taken malta
>rommel got to fucking el alamein and nearly won.
He was nowhere near victory, he only got to El Alamein on the lucky strike of seizing British supplies post Gazala, and OH YEAH, El Alamein is still hundreds of kilometers away from anything that actually matters.
>what makes you think that with a boosted force not the whole fucking barbarossa force obviously he wouldnt have reached suez and taken malta
Taking Malta is possible, but largely irrelevant.
A larger force is going to run out of supplies faster, because the bottleneck is how much you can transport through Tripoli's harbor and over the coastal roads. Meanwhile, the British actually bothered to build railroads in Egypt, so even if you somehow win El Alamein, you get to have all the joy of trying to besiege Alexandria next. And unlike Tobruk, which held him up for the better part of a year the first time around, the British have actual rail infrastructure in the area, meaning they can dump the entire Mid-East command on you instead of dribbling men in a little at a time for the same supply problems.
but with malta taken their supply problem is mainly solved because IRL they weren't effective due to the limitex shit they could get through the med.
I don't think they would've been able to hold out as more and more germans arrive.Oh and nevermind that the Luftwaffe could bomb them all the way from Crete
>but with malta taken their supply problem is mainly solved because IRL they weren't effective due to the limitex shit they could get through the med.
No, it isn't. Their principal supply problem is the effort in moving shit from Tripoli to the front line in absence of any infrastructure worth anything. That is precisely why I cited the article I mentioned a few posts up. Malta was a comparatively minor nuisance next to that.
>Oh and nevermind that the Luftwaffe could bomb them all the way from Crete
You might want to look up a term "operational range". It's about 400 miles from Crete to the Egyptian coast, or 640 km if you're more comfortable with metric. An Me-109 or a Ju-87 can't even make it there and back. What few bombers they can use for an operation are going to have to sacrifice most of their payload to carry more fuel, hampering their effectiveness. Also, because you can't take a fighter escort, the RAF will chew you to pieces.
So effectively you are saying that they never could've taken suez even with a bolstered troop number and without the burgers making a presence while malta is taken.
Is that correct?
Yes, I'm saying they could never have taken Suez, even with more troops. To get an Axis victory in North Africa to even be possible, you need something like a railroad going from Tripoli to Tobruk with a few armored trains to staff it before war breaks out.
Malta is not particularly relevant, and I have no idea what you're talking about concerning the Americans. There's a reason why DAK's orders were to preserve an Italian presence in Cyrenica, not go off and conquer Egypt.
even if they aren't able to take suez all the way into 42,43 they most likely would have strangled them if they ramped up those u-boats.
And that would've been doable if no barbarossa occours.
Top it off with hitler not declaring war on the us and you got yourself.
And the lend-lease would have been minor in comparison of the tonnage sinked
*a victory
>even if they aren't able to take suez all the way into 42,43
No, they would not have been able ot take Suez, full stop. They would not even have been able to take Alexandria.
> they most likely would have strangled them if they ramped up those u-boats.
Out of which shipyard which weren't continually producing the things?
>And that would've been doable if no barbarossa occours.
No, it wouldn't have, because you can't just wave your hand and turn a small arms plant into a u-boat yard.
>Top it off with hitler not declaring war on the us and you got yourself.
And watch the U.S. gradually ramp up aid to Britain and declare war on him?
>And the lend-lease would have been minor in comparison of the tonnage sinked
Just read this. Your ignorance of the Battle of the Atlantic would be astounding if not for the fact that your ignorance of North Africa presages it. jmss.org
Or you are just making the allies worth more than they were.
The british didn't have a punch before burgerland joined and the Us would never have declared war first on germany.
Roosevelt wouldnt have gotten away with it.
Better the jews than the race of peace.
The US entirely could have, by giving lend lease to Britain and the ussr they indebted themselves to the cause, if it looked like they would lose Roosevelt could use the potential economic loss as a means to intervene.
Even baring that, the US had been gearing up for war, thinking Roosevelt would not have found a way to make it work is silly he really wanted a war with Germany.
Not even close to a stormcuck, but...
>Germany could have won WW2 if it wasn't for the Russian Winter
The winter of '42 was unusually cold and harsh and German forces were prepared for a milder, more typical Russian winter, which lets the Ostheer keep their momentum up and take Moscow. Whether that wins the Eastern Front or just creates second Stalingradesque meatgrinder is conjecture.
>Roosevelt wouldnt have gotten away with it.
Wipe the stormcum off yourself and pay attention. The US had no problems with helping the Allies and Comintern with material goods during the war. The US had no problems shipping some of that material themselves. It would not take a genius to figure out that another Lusitania-like incident would be enough to bring the holdouts in Congress around to the idea of war with Germany. With the sheer amount of naval traffic to and from Great Britain the possibility of such an incident goes from "if" to "when."
The only way for Germany to avoid a war with the US is to end the war before the US gets involved, and the likelihood of US involvement will increase as the war drags on.
user, Operation Typhoon, the drive on Moscow, already lost momentum and stalled before winter conditions set in.
Winter conditions began to set in as early as October and further compounded the delays that the rain and mud brought until the temperature dropped enough to freeze the mud solid. The German forces were able to pick up momentum again and advance another 60 miles or so in the brief window before the winter blizzards stopped them for good. IIRC the Soviet army was outclassed in every regard but their logistics, even with the forces coming from the Far East to bolster their defenses. German encirclement of the city was quite feasible and it would have meant another major meatgrinder of a battle for the Soviets, at best. Don't forget that at this time the Soviet war machine wasn't quite on par with Germany's and it was only due to the better logistics and the poor weather that the Red Army turned the tide in '42 and the opening months of '43.
'41 and '42, I meant.
No, the first snow was in November, and The advance stopped before then usacac.army.mil
In fact, the advance in October was only possible because of the real overly low temperatures, it usually is muddy as hell around that time of year.
>it was only because of winter that the Soviets could counterattack.
First off, the Germans stopped advancing quite some time before the Vuzama counteroffensive. Secondly, you're putting the cart before the horse. Bad weather exacerbated Germany's poor supply situation, but the Soviets were successfully attacking overextended German positions as early as Yelnya, which was in early September '41.
>the first snow was in November
The first snow was in October. Not anything sustained, but enough to make the already thick mud more viscous and difficult to move through. This is what halted the advance initially.
>In fact, the advance in October was only possible because of the real overly low temperatures, it usually is muddy as hell around that time of year.
There was no significant movement from either side in October. Movement began again in November, once the temperature was consistently low enough to freeze the mud solid.
>First off, the Germans stopped advancing quite some time before the Vuzama counteroffensive
The German advance stopped somewhere between November 15th and December 5th, depending on the particular element. The Soviet counteroffensive began December 5th.
>Bad weather exacerbated Germany's poor supply situation, but the Soviets were successfully attacking overextended German positions as early as Yelnya, which was in early September '41.
The winter exacerbated the logistical issues Germany faced, sure, but German materiel was also plagued with failure because of the exceptionally cold conditions. Even without these issues, the nature of the winter of '42 meant that German operations could no longer employ maneuvre warfare as they had previously and that the focus of operations went from strategic targets to tactical ones, lest the Ostheer freeze to death.
if halifax had become prime minister, like many in politics wanted, britain would have sued for peace. which means it's not insane to contemplate it. without britain at war, very unlikely the US would have entered the war. so, actually, the difference between ww2 being the way it is and it being a completely different game is the decision of just one guy deciding he didn't want to be prime minister.
also, soviets would've had a very tough time without british - and later american - support. it's very thinkable the germans would've captured all significant russian centres of population and industry by late 1942, if things had been just a bit different.
and for the haters of german material superiority: you should read stories of the guys who actually commanded panthers and tigers. soviet tanks were shit. sherman was shit.
(russian infantry was insanely ferocious though nonetheless)
Not in the Herr, no. Rather across branches, with the employment of CAS to support tank breakthroughs being a centerpiece of german doctrine.
POL BTFO!!!
>ayo aryans iz definityly tha masterrace!
Testimony at the Nuremberg trials and things from the holocaust museum aren't reputable?
>britain, france, germany and usa all team up to destroy the soviet union
hnng
>and for the haters of german material superiority: you should read stories of the guys who actually commanded panthers and tigers. soviet tanks were shit.
The Germans literally had to completely rework their armored doctrine after they first started fighting Russian tanks. What the fuck are you talking about?
>sherman was shit.
The whole "Shermans were shit tanks" narrative came from one book written by some random support guy who never once drove or commanded Shermans. The Sherman was on par with the Panzer IV and T34, look at any realistic comparison and you'll come to that conclusion.
>Autistically screech about Germans having the best tanks while fixing it for the 5th time that day
>that guy who randomly inserts german words into his sentences
at the time of barbarossa the soviets had better tanks, yes. but i referred to the talk that the superiority of the panther and tiger is a myth, which is nonsense.
>The polish tried to use calvary against Uber Panzers
>The Soviets only won because they just threw men at the Reich
>The waffen SS were elite troops
>The wehrmacht was clean
>V2 rockets could reach the moon
the wehrmacht was clean yes
the soviets only won because of zerging yes
post counterproof nigger
>The Wehrmacht was clean and weren't Nazis, it was da ebul SS who committed atrocities, and only them! Dey wuz just good soldaten fighting for their country and didn't even like Hitler
>the holocaust didn't happen but i wish it would happen now!
