Why were the Nazis so good?

>Germans arguably had the best small arms of the war

The best German guns were better than the best American guns, but the average American guns were better than the average German guns.

Stg 44 > M1 Garand > Kar 98k

*blocks your path*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze

>Germans arguably had the best small arms of the war
lelno

>considering
>"superior technology"
Where is the mass production?

Not him, but there was a deliberate decision not to produce jet engines or aircraft using them. By 1944, the Allies had enormous command of the air, and the primary mission was bombing targets, and protecting said bombers. Flight time meant more than high speed, and the props still had the edge in that regard.

The only thing the StG really has is its manufacturing process which doesn't have much to do with the gun itself. It's otherwise pretty mediocre.

Am I not understanding you or are you quoting the wrong post?

WTF does "unethical"-ness have to do with it? Try these contributions to German War Machine effectiveness.
1. Krupp's continuous arms development in the '20s & '30s in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.
2. Really smart Nazi (German) scientists. (Von Braun got funding. The US had no funded equivalent for rocket development.)

Additionally, what was "unethical" about Nazi society? Nazi merely had different ethical standards. You are trying to do that Apples vs. Oranges thing. (Careful here. This could be bait)

>Stg44
>Receiver that bends
>Full auto jamming
>Good

>Nazis were decades ahead of the allies during the war when it came to military technology and other knowledge.
They weren't.
> Is this a result of the mainly unethical society the Nazis fostered or was it something else entirely?
If they weren't then the question is pretty senseless.
>Germans arguably had the best small arms of the war
That's arguable.
BM-13 Katyusha was superior to german Wurfrahmen 40, Nebelwerfer and other rocket systems.

>whites stop obeying jewish monsters
>suddenly advance technologically by decades
Hmmm......

debt free currency, hence workers were rewarded for innovations

The US created the first operational Atomic Bomb. You can jack off about planes, rockets, and tanks, but nukes single-handedly make all those things irrelevant.

The most ironic part was that it was Hitler’s own retardation of chasing away Jewish scientists that led to the Yanks getting the A-bomb up and running first. Had the Nazi’s even managed to beat the Brits and Soviets, they’d have still been royally fucked by a hail fire of nukes by the US. The Soviets only avoided it because the US didn’t officially have any reason to go to war with them yet, and American citizens would have taken offense with nuking a country that hadn’t made any real aggressions towards them.

>It's another "in order to disprove common wehraboo myths we do a complete 180 and claim that Germans were shit in every possible aspect" episode

This, we need to revive Deutshesphysik.

Like what. Even with the things they were good at they made counterproductive decisions.

Except nobody claimed that you dumbass. They were ahead in several areas. Problem was, a lot of the things they sunk research too were ultimately irrelevant to winning the war. The US actually weaponized this autism later on in the Cold War playing a sort of bait and switch tactic with the Soviets to get them to sink lots of time and research in to endeavors that wouldn’t help them to win the war.

>it's another wehraboo gets #triggered and starts passive aggressively frogposting episode

...

explain pls

never got this considering the massive amounts of debts germany was accumulating since 1933

>Additionally, what was "unethical" about Nazi society? Nazi merely had different ethical standards.

>Where exactly do you think the P-80 Shooting Star came from?
The british literally gave them all their research into jet engines so they could build one, in the 30s the us army and airforce for some reason decided jet engines were impossible and there was very little indidgenous research until they heard the germans had got one to fly in 1943

The Nazis weren't decades ahead of the Allies. They might have been a few years ahead in a few specific technological sectors, but that's about it. And when it comes to nuclear weapons, which were probably the only thing that could actually have won the Nazis the war, the Nazis were almost hopelessly far behind the Allies.

Literally only area they had an advantage was rocketry.
They were inferior in everything else, compared to British and Americans. Even Soviets were ahead in some areas (tank design for example).

There's several reasons for this myth of ''super-strong advanced Nazi Reich'':

1) Post-war toleration of myths, due to Cold War.

2) Ignoring timeline and geography aspects of WW2.
2a) They never ''faced the whole world''. They faced Western powers minus France, and USSR. They had allies. Most of states who declared war on Germany did so once they were beaten. They didn't directly face UK or USA until late 1944, ignoring strategic bombing, and by then they were already beaten in the East.
2b) They took out their opponents while they were isolated and/or unprepared. Poland was squashed, and Allies did little besides declare war. Czechoslovakia and Austria were handed on a plate to Hitler. Norway and Denmark were totally unprepared. Yugoslavia was unprepared and wracked with internal troubles. Greece was facing Italian invasion. In the case of these last two, alliance with Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria helped a lot to make their situation untenable.
2c) France was a great victory, no doubt. However, they invaded USSR in the mid of 1941, and suffered a huge blow at Moscow. After that, their victory was improbable. Year later, at Stalingrad, their victory became impossible. Ignoring K/D ratio and other bullshit, Barbarossa was a failure.
2d) In 1941 they had almost the whole Europe at their disposal, and allies like Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, occupied Croatia, plus various other collaborators. Population of their allies and Germany was actually greater than Soviet, considering that Soviets lost Ukraine and Belarus and parts of Russia early on. German labor force alone outnumbered Soviet labor force, they had far more resources (except oil), and on top of their bigger and more experienced labor force, they had equal number of slave labor.

>They didn't directly face UK or USA until late 1944,
They had about a million troops in Italy come 1943 user.

This. It's amazing how much energy some people put into hypothetical "how the Nazis could have won" scenarios, when the truth is that unless they somehow got nukes before the Allies, they were fucked. Everything else was irrelevant. Like you point out, the Nazis could have conquered both Britain and the USSR and still gotten nuked all to shit come 1945. The war was lost before it began.

3) They lasted until 1945, but only because they refused to accept defeat. Imperial Germany was a huge threat even in 1918, Nazis were practically doomed in 1943. But unlike Imperial Germany, they fought until the very end. When you consider that their first serious and hard campaign started in 1941, they literally lasted 2 years. In 1944 Bagration and Normandy landings were the end. Everything after that was twitching of a corpse.

4) Compare the situation of Imperial Germany and Nazi Germany. Imperial Germany DIRECTLY faced two great powers, they had utterly incompetent and weak A-H as an ally (they propped them up far more than Nazis propped up Italy), and later on they faced even more Brits, in addition to Russians and French. And by 1918, they knocked out Russia, and were giving serious trouble to French and Brits with Spring Offensive. Now that was a feat of strength. Nazis? They literally managed 3 years after facing serious opponent, and I'm being generous. In reality, Moscow was when their victory became improbable.

...

>>They didn't directly face UK or USA until late 1944
>What is North Africa
>What is the Battle for Britain
>What is the battle for Atlantic
>What is Strategic Bombing

>inb4 they don't count
Yes, yes they do. All of these things cost resources that could have been used against the Soviets. Things like keeping an occupational force in Norway or building the Atlantic wall cost time and money. Just because there wasn't any ground combat doesn't mean it didn't take a toll. Here's a thought: even after the initial German invasion was stopped, the Soviet production lines were so strained that they for a time could not afford to build new railcarts (something vital for logistics). Eventually the production resume, but imagine how long it would have taken if Soviets at the same time had to build hundreads of submarines or strategic bombers? Every bit counts.

>Germans
>White
>Implying the Jews didn’t fund the Reich

Italian Front took out some 20 German divisions by December 1943, and later it increased (on paper) to 29 at most.
Sure, it was significant, but until late 1943 they practically faced Soviets directly, and two or three divisions were in Africa (later this number increased, but that was Hitler's mistake).
As I said, their victory became improbable after Moscow, after Stalingrad it became impossible, and their defeat became probable. Kursk was their last try, and after Kursk their defeat became highly probable. Bagration and Normandy landings just put them out of their misery.
But realistically, they were in dire straits in 1943 already.
It's true Soviets had aid, but that was indirect aid, and around 7% of Soviet war production.
Germans had twice the labor force (including slave labor), far more resources (except oil), and yet they failed to knock out Soviets, who were their first serious opponent.
Not just that, they failed to knock them out after Soviets suffered dreadful loses during Barbarossa. Soviets were unprepared too.
So performance of Nazi Germany was literally abysmal, excluding the bright spot of French campaign.

lol

Oyyyy veyyyyy

>Also keep in mind that the Germans arguably had the best small arms of the war
yeah the Kar98k was so great

I don't except anything better from you, subhuman cretin.
>North Africa
TWO fucking divisions. Later three. Later even more, but by then they already suffered catastrophic reverse at Stalingrad.
>BoB
Air campaign. Yes, it takes resources, but it was over once they invaded USSR. They didn't directly face the might of British army in a land war.
>BoA
Again, that shit took resources, but that's not a fucking front. They fought with few surface raiders and submarines.
>Strategic Bombing
I mentioned that. But, AGAIN, despite the impact of strategic air campaign, that wasn't another land front.
>Every bit counts.
I never disagreed with that, you're missing my point.
My point was that Nazi performance was fucking abysmal compared to performance of Imperial Germany.
Yet some inbred cretins want to convince you Nazis were some magicians.
All those ''magicians'' did was burn through their economy in order to rearm, exploit lack of preparation and lack of willingness to fight, and then break their teeth on Soviets.

Basically, claiming Nazi Germany performance was impressive is getting focused on tactical and operational success, and totally ignoring strategic aspects.
Guess what, strategic aspects is where actual Nazis made decisions.
Tactical and operational success was the product of German officers, who weren't made by Nazis. They were made by decades and centuries of tradition.

Even if you take all the men, material, and resources out of those theatres, the abysmal supply situation in the Soviet Union would probably make it hard to utilize most of it.

A victorious Nazi Germany would be a very different situation than 1945 Japan. The most obvious would be Germany having air supremacy in Europe, and America lacking a carrier-borne nuclear-capable bomber or a trans-Atlantic bomber.

His point was fair, but that wasn't my point. Though you are also somewhat correct.
And reason I use Imperial Germany is because it's literally the same state, minus Polish territories and Alsace-Lorraine.
Their performance in WW1 was somewhat impressive, against three great powers from the start.

They had alt-ethics

German tactical and operational success in WW2 was based on abandoning decades and centuries of tradition. Close air support and dedicated tank units were not based on pike squares.

Nobody was using fucking pike squares in WW1 you pikey.

All the German tactical and operational evolution from WW1 is a direct result of the trench warfare they had to face in WW1.

It was because the Nazis had cleansed their society from alien elements. More homogeneous societies will always be more successful.

You can those resources to build more trucks and railways.

>Basically, claiming Nazi Germany performance was impressive is getting focused on tactical and operational success, and totally ignoring strategic aspects.
>Guess what, strategic aspects is where actual Nazis made decisions.
This.

Wrong. They simply had new toys and learned some stuff from WW1. German operational and tactical doctrine evolved a bit, it wasn't radically changed. Nor did Nazis had any fucking impact on that in any case.
Auftragstaktik, Bewegungskrieg, those are old Prussian concepts.

Imperial Germany really isn't a good comparison for Nazi Germany. Imperial Germany went into WW1 was a great power, with an amazing economy, a colonial empire, a huge navy, and a fiercely loyal officer corps with decades of experience. Nazi Germany didn't really have any of that stuff. Germany had been neutered by Versailles, and the Nazis seized power in 1933, so they only had about 5 years to prepare for the war.

Germany got outsmarted in both world wars by the Brits, Russians, and Americans. They’re autists who focus on looking strong instead of being strong.

>WW1 is a war of creating the best web of alliances
>Germany makes a shitty web of alliances

>WW2 is a war of ideology and bombing
>Has a shit ideology, sucks at bombing

They continually get played because they lose sight of the fact that war is meaningless unless you win.

Indeed, hence why the usa, a country formed by mixing of many cultures and races, is by far the greatest failed state in the modern world

I was just talking about "centuries of tradition" and I'm not giving the fucking brownshirts credit for any of the innovations, but that there were innovations is pretty self evident when observing the invasion of France.

Nazi Germany and Imperial Germany are the same state - the Reich. There was plenty of crossover from the Imperial government to the Weimar Republic and then to the Nazi regime.

Germans were neutered but they were already preparing operational tactics in secret as early as 1919.

>Indeed, hence why the usa, a country formed by mixing of many cultures and races, is by far the greatest failed state in the modern world

Also, they're complete autists when their geographic situation requires them to be very good at diplomacy and alliances.

>Imperial Germany went into WW1 was a great power
So was Germany before WW2.
>with an amazing economy
So Nazis DIDN'T fix German economy? That's actually my point. They failed even when it came to that, Schacht's brilliance aside. As soon as Schacht was kicked out, it went downhill.
>a colonial empire
Totally irrelevant to WW1, besides guerilla campaign in Africa tying tens of thousands of Entente troops.
>a huge navy
Which played almost no part in WW1.
>and a fiercely loyal officer corps
>with decades of experience
How loyal they were is debatable, but most were loyal to Germany if nothing, and those men still existed. Versailles didn't stipulate killing their officers.
>Germany had been neutered by Versailles
That's a fucking lie and exaggeration.
You know what happened to their army?
They merely downsized, cut the chaff from the wheat, and only accepted best of the best in Reichswehr after 1919.
German officer corps and quality of their army didn't suffer at all, in fact it improved.

What innovations?
Technical ones, sure, but tactically and operationally it was merely an evolution, not some revolution. It was all rooted in Prussian military experience.

>WW1 is a war of creating the best web of alliances
>Germany makes a shitty web of alliances
The alliances were made before the war and Germany was surprisingly successful - despite shitty diplomacy and unreliable allies. In fact, due to Germany actually defeating Russia militarily and managing to stall both France and Britain, the German military got the idea that a war like this is winnable through maximisation of the tactical potential. Whether a war like this could be won through military force alone was not yet certain after WW1 - only WW2 answered that question.

>WW2 is a war of ideology and bombing
>Has a shit ideology, sucks at bombing
Utter nonsense. WW2 was a mere continuation of WW1 and was subject to the same imperatives.

Germany gave America a valid reason to enter WW1 against them. It was their single dumbest fucking mistake. Americans were feverishly isolationist, and Wilson couldn’t have brought the US in had Germany not eaten to bait laid by the British.

>Send telegraph to Mexico asking them to attack the US if they join in which the British intercept and decode and give to Wilson
>Fire upon US ships sending munitions to U.K.
>Don’t take as many loans from the US as the Allies thus incentivizing America to join on the side of the French and British

Pure fucking autism.

Don't know if all the oil and steel from those theaters is enough for a decent amount of trains and trucks, not to mention it can't all be devoted to transport.

The British didn't want a meteor shot down and have Germany recover the engine parts.

The Allies had complete control of the air, and didn't need the Meteor to keep it that way. If the Meteor's more reliable engine was reverse-engineered from a wreck, it would harm the war effort far more than the Meteor would help it.

Same reason that VT shells were not allowed to be used by AA units on the continent, only by ships and AA guns in Britain. The advantage you get from deploying VT shells is not worth the risk of a dud being recovered and reverse-engineered, giving the Germans a superb weapon against the bombers.

>Nazi Germany and Imperial Germany are the same state

The circumstances are very different. Nazi Germany was much weaker, comparatively speaking. Nazi Germany was Imperial Germany's edgy little brother.

>Versailles didn't stipulate killing their officers.

Versailles restricted the size of standing army that Germany was allowed to maintain during the interbellum period, which means that fewer officers are being trained. WW1-era German officers had much less of an opportunity to pass on their knowledge compared to WW1-era British officers, for instance. And the German navy did much more in WW1 than you probably realize. It's mere existence was a perpetual source of anxiety for Britain throughout the conflict, and it strangled Russia by blockading the Baltic Sea.

>Can’t dispute a point
>Post meme image

That or maybe I’m overestimating your intelligence and you were too dumb to pick up on the obvious sarcasm.

...

...

They could’ve created nukes but decided not to because of how harmful it was to the ecosystem environment.

There was no evidence of nuclear contamination that is why McArtur want to use nukes in a tactical level

Back to /pol>>

Nope they flunked out the math and couldn't get enough heavy water to produce their version of nuke

>the first guided bombs (Hs 193, Fritz X)
>the first cruise missile (Fi 103)
>the first ICBM (A4)
>the first guided surface-to-air missiles (including Rheintochter, Wasserfall and more)
>the first guided air-to-air missile (Ruhrstahl X-4)
>the first modern submarines which could actually operate submerged for an extended duration (Type XXI 'Elektroboot')
>the first assault rifles (StG 44, StG 45)
>Night (Infrared) vision devices (Sperber FG 1250, Vampir device)

The Vampir system wasn't unique, America came out with a similar model like 3 months after Germany, the StG44/45 are overrated pieces of shit, the A4 is not an ICBM you absolute memer

>after Germany
>after

>the StG44/45 are overrated pieces of shit
>i-it was shit i swear

>the A4 is not an ICBM you absolute memer
not truly 'intercontinental' but it's very safe to say it was the precessor of ICBM's

>backpedals from 'decades ahead' to 3 months ahead

ahahah stay classy wehraboo

>>after Germany
They didn't steal German tech to finish it you know, it was also lighter
>i-it was shit i swear
Read literally any report about them by people that tested them, the receiver bent in a breeze, they jammed if you used them on full auto, they were only praised for being accurate
>not truly 'intercontinental'
It's not even a SRBM, it's range is less than 400KMs, but good moving of the goalposts there

>the first guided bombs (Hs 193, Fritz X)
Burgers outdone them by IR seeking ones and TV guided ones.

>the first cruise missile (Fi 103)
Kewl, Russians tried it decade back, but failed.

>the first ICBM (A4)
Please learn what does ICBM mean.

>the first guided surface-to-air missiles
Too bad, they didn't finished them

>the first guided air-to-air missile
First it wasn't finished, second wire guided A2A missiles aren't exactely great.

>the first modern submarines which could actually operate submerged for an extended duration (Type XXI 'Elektroboot')
>the first assault rifles
Kewl.

i've only made two posts in this thread and none of them contained the word 'decades'

I'd argue ww2 was more about ideology and logistics than ideology and bombing.

both the Japanese and the germans had extremely shitty logistics compared to the allies in ww2.

The germans had a fuckton of makeshift/captured vehicles, and were largely reliant on horsecarts.

the Japanese could barely feed their own troops much less any POW's or Civilian populations.

>bombing
>relevant to the outcome of the war

>after Germany
Three months is nothing, especially not if American model was better.

Not to mention the night-vision concept came from Magyar working under Brits, Germans just turned it into military tech.

>not understanding how public opinion sways war efforts when peoples homes are getting fire bombed

>when you redefine OP's topic to fit my narrow worldview it's right!!!! amazing!!!

>>not understanding that totalitarian regimes don't give a fuck about public opinion

>give some examples of where the Germans had some advantages because someone was spouting bullshit
>IT DOESN'T COUNT LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU

>thinking totalitarian regimes just magically create goods and armies

(also don't reply this is the last brainlet meme i have)

>not understanding how public opinion sways war efforts when peoples homes are getting fire bombed

They grow angry at the enemy and support the war effort more?

Because that worked so well when the Germans bombed London

hmm

It’s mainly because they had shit tonnes of money to invest, whereas the other powers were kinda recovering from this great economic collapse and democratically killing communists

It depends on the nation, some will demand peace some will demand total war
See Britain WW2 and Russia ww1
(Terror bombing has the same effect on morale as losing tonnes of men

>decades ahead
>rush into backwater Russia
>realize you need to update your tech

Hmm. This is actually an interesting scenario. I've made a thread for it: (except in the thread I'm going with an unconquered Britain, since I can't really imagine any way the Nazis could have seized Britain even had their invasion of the USSR gone optimally well).