How did the Nazis lose when they were able to capture almost the entirety of mainland Europe except Russia and Spain...

The History of the Second World War by Churchill is good start.
It's quite general in it's coverage of the war and not that complex so it's good for a beginner

brainlet

>How did the Nazis lose when they were able to capture almost the entirety of mainland Europe except Russia and Spain pic related?
Because much of the territories conquered were dependent on overseas exports and their economies subsequently crashed under blockade.
>How did they finance their war effort after getting hobbled by the Treaty of Versailles and having no significant allies who could finance them?
Massive debt that increased tenfold from around 40-50 billion Reichsmarks at the start of the war to 390 billion at the end. Debt repayment took up nearly 80% of the expenditures near the end of the war, and massive amounts of money was being printed to keep up.
Before the confidence of savers was destroyed, they also got large amounts of money by pilfering deposits from bank accounts.

>I'm the user you replied to
I wouldn't recommend Churchill or anyone actually involved in that part of history. There are a lot of biased sources (and I see Churchill as a power hungry maniac).
Maybe The Second World War by Janusz Piekalkiewicz for starters. It's more of a chronical work. What happened when and where, leaving out the motives of the key players. Plus it has a ton of photos and is an easy read.

Who was willing to lend them money?

It was internal debt.

Thyssen, Ford, J.P. Morgan and so on. Basically all the capitalists who always profit over war

I still want to know why Franco didn't join the axis

He was aware that joining the axis would make his country become a first choice for an overseas invasion. Sensible man. To not look like an ass he sent the Division Azul instead.

>Country is torn after the Spanish civil war
>Hey guys, let's fuck up our country EVEN HARDER
Maybe if he felt like getting coup'ed.

Joining a world war while still recovering from a civil war isn't a good idea

Come on, he could still take out Britain

How?

>I know the Croats in the Ustasha committed massacres of Bosniaks and Serbs, who else?

serbs in the chetniks comitted massacres of croats and bosnians

italian fascists comitted massacres of croats serbs and bosnians and slovenes

croats, serbs and slovenes and bosnians in the partisans comitted massacres of croats, serbs, bosnians as well as italians and germans during and after the war

germans and volksdeutschers in the ss divisions commited massacres of everibody including killing other germans

also the ustashe massacred croats and the chetniks killed a lot of serbs too, then some of them all switched sides and killed more people with the partisans - a lot of these people were all from the same places or areas you see...

the moscow attacked stalled out. The russians had untold reserves available while the germans were at the end of their supply-lines

Stalingrad would've opened the way to the Caucasus, which was producing about 80% of Russia's oil at the time, also fairly certain there were a fuckton of Commies there.

>Fuckton of commies there
>Leaving Moscow wide open for an invasion

It isn't bad luck, it's just stupidity.

By flanking them to the west dumbass

Moscow was not "wide open, it had even more forces than around Stalingrad, which were embarked on things like the perpetual assault on Rzhev and operation Mars.

>How did the Nazis lose when they were able to capture almost the entirety of mainland Europe except Russia and Spain pic related?
The only really impressive part of their early conquests was overrunning the French/Brits in France in a few weeks. The rest was either them bluffing and bullying their way into bloodless victories, beating up on vastly inferior armies, or allying with right-wingers in other countries (Romania, for example).
After they had seized all those dark blue parts, they were in a tough spot. They had no way of doing any serious damage to England. The US wasn't in the war yet, but its policy makers were heavily sympathetic to England. And the Soviet Union, although it turned out to have an incompetent army, had enough land, resources, and tough units willing to fight to the end that the German invasion ended up getting stopped eventually when it was finally launched.
Also, although the Nazis probably didn't know much about the details, US nukes were in the works - which meant that if they couldn't end the war within a few years, there would be a good chance that Germany would end up being nuked and would be able to do basically nothing about it, other than maybe hope that they could catch up really quick - but their nuke program was far behind that of the US.
Meanwhile, despite the vast lands the Germans held in 1941, the fact is that there's a big difference between holding land and being able to connect it to your economy and exploit it effectively. The Germans, of course, tried to loot everything they could, and they used a lot of slave labor, but it wasn't enough.
>How did they finance their war effort after getting hobbled by the Treaty of Versailles and having no significant allies who could finance them?
I don't know much about this, but I hear that Tooze's "Wages of Destruction" is worth a read.

nobody, their banking system abolishes debt

With what navy?

Because he didn't believe Germany would win

>Not enough of crucial resources
>Not enough of manpower reserves
>Not enough of good and useful allies
>Not enough of local sympathy and good treatment of occupied territory, so it creates tons of partisans who cuck your already fucked logistics
>Not enough of good aerial home defense, which can prevent bombing operations
>Not enough of good economic systems, particularly those which militarizes in fucking 1944 when it's already too late
>Not enough of winter closes in 1941
>Not enough of stable logistics
>Not enough of smart strategies
>Not enough of smart decisions
>Not enough of smart Fuhrers
>Too many retarded, meth addicted, fanatical leaders obsessed with lebensraum and g*rmanic """superiority"""
That's why nazis are complete embarrassment to Europe. Stop posting stupid wehraboo threads.

>>Not enough of good economic systems, particularly those which militarizes in fucking 1944 when it's already too late
Meme.

I have a whole book of Seuss' WWII cartoons, fuckin' love 'em. Got it at Manzanar. Maybe I should start a Japanese Internment thread but I wouldn't know how to do it.

>Not enough of good and useful allies
If you're ever in a world war, and Italy starts out on your side, just pack it up and go home.

How come the Entente didn't then?

Italy was their handicap, they wanted to make it fair

youtu.be/VgjTrgIDK2Y

They didn't join the war until 1915. Italy being on your side from the beginning is bad, if they join your side after the fighting begins they're like a good luck charm.

>Navy that lost most of its ships in a civil war
Sick meme bro

Because Spain was just reeling in from a civil war
and their economy relies a lot on America and Britain
simple stuff really

>how did the nazis lose while fighting everyone of note at once with no money no allies and no coordination over the massive sprawl that their territory became

>Germany: 2900 tanks
>Soviets: 20500 tanks
gee i dunno

Brainlet

>americans belive in that

Watch the entire video

>Navy gets blown the fuck out by pussy boi Murrica in 1898
>Oh things will be totally different in 1939 against the RN after a civil war which lost them half their capital ships
Kill yourself

Conquered countries who have no choice. They plundered austrias gold reserves for example

So Hitler didn't declare war on the US which eliminated any pretext we had for not getting involved in another European war? Because that happened. One of the many boneheaded movies on his part.

The Brits were the dominant world power at the time. They were not really underdogs.

i mean that Germany would lose war whatever they declare war on USA or not

The point is Hitler personally dug germany's grave.

I can't imagine it going any better under the Weimars rearmament program without any NSDAP to shit it up any further

He was too based to participate in the shitshow which was WW2

Block the med entrance.

they feared winter warrior

If the US stays neutral, there is nobody that can defeat the Nazis. The bongs had been fully cucked, even with full US support, and the Sovs were getting their shit pushed in, even after they had been the Nazis' allies for crisakes. The very best that could have happened is the Sovs reach a stalemate and settlement.

>How did the Nazis lose

It's actually a miracle the Nazis lasted as long as they did, really.

Well for one it didn't help that they basically enslaved nations as they went along.

What do you mean by "US stays neutral"? Isolationist? Or just that the US doesn't send combat units, but keeps supporting the Allies with money and access to resources?

The "they conquered everything is a meme". Italy, Hungary, Romania, Croatia Bulgaria etc were allies. Yes, they did invade Italy in 1943 and Hungary in 1944, but vassals are not the same as conquering, actually attacking the Carpathians would had eaten up a lot of resources.
>Which other nations/ethnicities/political factions are complicit in the genocides conducted by the Nazis
Romanians, Hungarians, Italy Croats, French etc... all occupied/vassal territory gladly threw their jews/gipsies/unwanted minorities into the hands of the nazis

Japan was his biggest ally, not declaring war meant to lose his biggest international ally.

The US would had got involved anyway, the UK and France are too important, and its not like they wanted to not get involved. Isolationist US is a meme, Roosevelt did need the people's support but they would had wanted war sooner or later without Pearl Harbor anyway.

it was stab in the back electric boogaloo
the jews are behind it read alexandros books on ww2

>Which other nations/ethnicities/political factions are complicit in the genocides conducted by the Nazis?

Literally everyone.
Then after things started to go bad for the krauts they played the victim card etc.

I disagee. The Washington Conference of 1922 ended Britain's status of being the dominant power. USA, GB, Japan had their fleets reduced to a ratio of 5:5:3. The US had the younger fleet and the bigger economy plus British debts. After WW1 Britain was the US' bitch. It only took them way longer to notice.

>How did the Nazis lose when they were able to capture almost the entirety of mainland Europe except Russia and Spain pic related?
American industry dwarfed German industry, and the Soviets and the UK were already peak foes to them. Combine all three and you get a curb-stomp. Something that should be noted is that, until late 1942/1943 when the US entered in full, the Nazis usually had an economic advantage over who they were fighting. They weren't exactly a small underdog. And when the odds were as against them as they were against their enemies, in 1943-1945, they pretty quickly lost.
>How did they finance their war effort after getting hobbled by the Treaty of Versailles
They literally just ignored it.
> and having no significant allies who could finance them?
Germany was the #1 industrial power in the world besides the USA even after WW1, and they had extensive trade with the USSR. Let us also not ignore their allies. While their European Axis allies were crap, but they were still numerous crap. About half the Axis troops on the Eastern Front in 1942 were non-German, instead being Finns, Baltics, Italians, Romanians, Hungarians, West Ukrainians, or Slovakians. Meanwhile, the 'Mediterranean' theater was, pre-1943, mostly an Italian effort and required significant British resources.
> Which other nations/ethnicities/political factions are complicit in the genocides conducted by the Nazis? I know the Croats in the Ustasha committed massacres of Bosniaks and Serbs, who else?
The Baltics. Especially Latvia and Lithuania. They were very complicit in hunting Jews and were drastically over represented in the SS. Also, Romania, but that's an obvious one.

Because their idea of an empire would have been fucking retarded in ancient times let alone that current year.

>They had no way of doing any serious damage to England
Nah

Because capturing large sections of land quickly is only a winning strategy in the minds of armchair strategists.

>who refused to listen to his general staff
Only partly true. His generals were supportive of the plans to invade Russia for example, but were quick to blame Hitler afterwards.

>Hitler was a fucking moron who refused to listen to his general staff
An oversimplification. Usually when he vetoed them, he was in the right. Vetoing Halder and instituting the Manstein Plan resulted in the Fall of France. Ignoring concerns about a French attack to his rear and throwing everything at Poland resulted in a quick victory there (his General Staff insisted that the French would buttfuck Germany, instead all that happened was Saar). Pulling back the Panzers from Citadel saved them from annihilation. And he was willing to agree with them if they had sufficient evidence for their assertions, like postponing his plan to invade Switzerland because it would be pointlessly costly and giving Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz free reign and more funding when he showed results with U-boats.

His worst moments were actually listening to incompetent fucks with obviously terrible plans, like Himmler's BOB plan or Brautisch's "I'll defeat the USSR in two months without capturing a single major city" autism. When he left the General Staff to their own devices, they gave him disasters like Kursk.
> and opted to act on his batshit ideology
This is true, but he was nowhere near alone in this.

>Himmler's BOB plan
*Goring's

>they gave him disasters like Kursk.
Strategically that was the best option-destroy as much of the soviets forces to buy time, and hopefully force stalin into a negotiating position.

Waiting for the soviets to build up and attack is what destroyed the german army 1944-45