America in WW2

I see this image posted a lot in /pol/. How historically accurate is it?

On that board they seem to heap blame for Germany's defeat on the Americans.

But didn't the Soviet Union and British Empire do most of the work? Historically speaking, why do so many neo-Nazis seem to resent the Americans more than the Soviets and British for the war?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk#Termination_of_Operation_Citadel
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Germans were the only ones destroying ancestral homelands

>That pic
Why is /pol/ so butthurt that their beloved Nazis weren't allowed to destroy Europe?

>They blame the US
The point of that image is to show that Germanic Americans went back to Germany to kill Germans and destroy the Reich, not to point out that Americans did all the fighting, they did give the lend lease to the Russians which arguably saved them from defeat, but that's another story.

>Germanic Americans

>declare war on US
>fucking CIS-hat americans ending the war and allowing us to form our own government
I'd be curious how Germany is ruled by muslims jews and niggers and how the US in World War 2 are to blame for it. Let alone the soldiers.

So no. Not accurate at all. In fact virtually all Germans able to fled into the arms of the US because they didn't slaughter and mistreat Germans that much.
>But didn't the Soviet Union and British Empire do most of the work?
Yes

Unrelated but i am intrigued.
Tell us more!

>But didn't the Soviet Union and British Empire do most of the work?
no

Putting the question who contributed the most aside.

Allies did not represent, nor fought for the same values, that liberal society has today. We must remember that 1940's western society was from our perspective strictly conservative. Many modern liberals would surely deem it as mysogonistic and racist. The sexual revolution and the civil rights movement started long time after, in the 1960s/70s. Would Axis victory prevent such events? We will never know (But if you ask me, probably not).

You can blame shape of modern society on ww2 allies as you can on anti-Napoleon coalition, enlightement philosophers, protestant reformers, reneissance thinkers, Christian baptists, Romans, Greeks, etc., because their actions shaped the modern world the same. And it would be as much pointless and stupid.

...

>didn't post a source at all
>quoted from source
>posted headline screencap
>if you copy paste a few of the words the source(s) come up
you're a bit retarded

>But didn't the Soviet Union and British Empire do most of the work?
Yes but the deciding factor that tipped the scales of battle in the allies favor was America, same thing happened in WW1.

t. Schlomo Shekelburgerstein von Kikenkock.

nice argument, fashggot

Yeah no. In WW1 German advance precisely stopped at the Americans. WW2 was lost after Stalingrad (actually after losing the air war against England).

This is not to dismiss the American part in the war.

Do Nazis not know that Germany declared war on the Americans?

Nazis think Poland attacked Germany

Actually Jewish bankers declared war on US through their puppet Hitler so that their puppet Roosevelt would react and support their puppet Stalin in destroying Europe by bringing about the peace that led to the fastest and largest growth in European history.
Fucking bluepilled kike cuck shill

they also think Churchill was prime minister in 1939

I've yet to see them make a justification for invading Czechoslovakia.

>WW2 was lost after Stalingrad
No, Stalingrad was an absolutely devastating defeat but the real deciding moment was the battle of Kursk (the LAST major german offensive on the eastern front) which was lost only because resources had to be diverted for the new threat in Italy which in turn only happened because America was now a part of the war.
>actually after losing the air war against England
The war was in no way lost at that point, if Russia was beaten then the brits would never have been able to continue the war.

>then the brits would never have been able to continue the war
What do you base that one?

>but the real deciding moment was the battle of Kursk
No I don't think a win at Kursk would have been able to change the outcome of the war.

As for Kursk being lost because of the Italian front I don't know. I'm willing to consider it if you can link me something.

>America winning WW2 = being ruled by jews, niggers, and muslims
I don't see how they make this connection. Do they think if America wasn't involved or lost, that Germans would come over, establish an epic grossamerikaner reich, and kill all the niggers and jews to make the world right again?
I also don't know how they reconcile this with post-WW2 America being ideal (the 50s).

How was 50's America better than 40's America? War time compromises aside.

>Would Axis victory prevent such events? We will never know (But if you ask me, probably not).
Literally how can you think that Nationalist Socialist, Jungian, anti-liberal ideals triumphing in the second world war would not have prevented the "progress" of liberalism and the sexual revolution in West Europe?

Why are you treating Jewish shills as if they're honest?

The triumph of Nationalism in WWII would remove America's post-WWII hegemony and stop LBJ's reforms to immigration allowing more non-whites into the states and beginning the end of America as a country for whites. That's America, in Europe then you'd not have the exported American model as a result of their hegemony culturally and economically after WWII.

>What do you base that one?
Germany would have controlled all of Europe, all they had to do was send some reinforcements to Rommel, send some troops to India and build hundreds of more submarines to isolate Britain itself, they would have been begging for peace within 6 months.
>No I don't think a win at Kursk would have been able to change the outcome of the war.
I am not saying that the war would have automatically been won by Germany if they won Kursk but it could still have been done, after Kursk it was impossible.
>As for Kursk being lost because of the Italian front I don't know. I'm willing to consider it if you can link me something.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk#Termination_of_Operation_Citadel
It is debatable who had the upper hand but there is no doubt that the german offensive was cancelled because of the Sicily landings.

>and stop LBJ's reforms
Why?

They had a bunch of guns, equipment and ammo user therefore it was rightful German Clay, I sometimes can't believe Germany's luck that they were able to annex it without bloodshed

>but the real deciding moment was the battle of Kursk
German lose war in december 1941 when they failed to take Moscow, after that they defeat was just amout of time

Not the guy you're responding to, but Germany, even occupying most of the European continent, had less of an economy than Britain plus her empire. Germany takes a year to build a bunch of u-boats, anf Britain shits out a bunch of cargo ships and escorts. And it would have been impossible to supply a larger force in North Africa straying away from Tripoli. There is no way for Germany to decisively defeat England.

It's probably something about "muh ethnic Germans getting killed." The mind of the stormfag has no limits to its stupidity.

Kek
Saved

>stormfags get blown out in the holocaust and Nazi economy threads so they come here to whine and cry
Go shitpost somewhere else, fags.

>implying America was ever a "country for whites"

It's more beneficial to liberal capitalism to have a large racially muddled populace to piddle shite to and far easier to develop a consumerist culture when everyone is a deracinated individual with no collective belonging. That'd be the "tin-foil hat" "out there" explanation, something perhaps more "down to earth" would be the benefits to liberal capitalism of mass immigration that isn't just from white countries as stipulated before LBJ and immigration reforms, since there'd be no real benefit to them* of maintaining racial homogenity in the US and they'd have the moral position to argue from against it after the racial turmoil of WWII and the National Socialist movement.

*Them can either refer to he Jews or the Oligarchs, or both interchangeably since there's goy oligarchs who it's argued are being handled by the Jew oligarchs

I actually have once on pol.
I don't remember what exactly he said but it was along the lines that Czechoslovakia asked Germany to annex them.

>implying America was ever a "country for whites"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

>The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free White persons of good character.

bugs...

>implying Native Americans and Africans weren't living in the United States at the time

The bongs were bankrupt in December 1940, and the US forced them to admit such. The bongs couldn't build shipping fast enough to replace that which the Nazis were sinking irl, let alone what they could have if they'd built a U-boat fleet of consequence. If no US, the bongs become Vichy, it's that simple.

Not as citizens until well after the civil war which enabled Africans who'd had the "African question" in the white country over them since they were brought as slaves, and not for Indians except in some cases until 1924.
America was a white country and country for whites until 1952 disallowed discrimination based on race for immigration and the flood gates were opened. The most prominent socialist in my country even called it a white nation or some other such term in 1914 I believe, which is what it was widely held as being even by someone like him who organized the IWW in Chicago and was an internationalist.
>m-m-muh melting pot

Because the next generations would ignore these ideas, just like hippie generation ignored the conservative ideas of their fathers.

Oh, it's you again.

Don't feed the troll.

>there is no doubt that the german offensive was cancelled because of the Sicily landings.
>At D-Day allies fight with chezch, polish and german scum while best soldiers of 3rd reich fight on eastern front

>Because the next generations would ignore these ideas
Sorry do you have some sort of precognition that cuts through what I say? Why wouldn't that be prevented by an ideology opposed to it?
Conservatism is an edifice that can be eroded, the ideology of National Socialists is a force meant for abrasion also. How would the river not smother the stream?

I blame dixiefags for all the niggers, they just couldn't get with the program and now they doomed us to having an eternal 5th column till the day this country goes tits up

gee, massive investments in public infrastructure sure was terrible.

t. assblasted bong

You're right that "progressive" liberalism wouldn't have continued if the NatSocs won but not because everyone was balls deep in the ideology you idealist cuck, they were totalitarian gov'ts, there wouldn't be any room for dissent of any kind.

Nazi propaganda was pretty hit-or-miss historically. If people don't want to believe the regime propaganda they won't believe it, and in German-occupied countries under Nazi rule there would be even less reason to just blindly do whatever the state tells you.

>totalitarian goverments would last forever.
>There would never be any social or cultural backlash after the ideas had been implemented by a repressive state.

Because president Hácha went to Berlin and Tito told him to become protectorate or Luftwaffe will bomb Prague
they also claim that communists were planning coup in Czechoslovakia after they all fled to Soviet union and Metaxas-tier government took controll in Czechoslovakia

>Would Axis victory prevent such events? We will never know (But if you ask me, probably not)

I'm not sure about that user. You think authoritarian regimes like Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy that are constantly harping on about order, purity and tradition would permit liberalism to take root?

you think they would even be able to maintain their puppet governments in the impossible event of their victory?

>have no in to spread your ideology in a state with an opposing ideology
>thinks the sexual and cultural revolutions in the US happend spontaneously after WWII
wew lad the state of Veeky Forums
the only way you could do anything or anything could happen is with an in, like how the US tries to fuck with Cuba through media

Also that doesn't go against what I'm saying, yeah it wouldn't have gotten anywhere because NatSoc Germany was totalitarian and ideologically driven, what's your point? Are you implying the US today doesn't have a sort of soft social totalitarianism wherein people who don't align ideologically with AT LEAST progressive liberalism or leftism get thrown under the bus and lose their means to live life? Liberal progressives control every facet of your society and continue eroding the only one thing that stands before them (the "conservative" meme edifice) and you think you're above NatSoc Germany? Lmao.

>a secret communist cell is the only explanation for people realizing that living in a boring suburb and repressing all of your instinctual desires is a shitty way to live life
It's almost like society is a dynamic entity with values that constantly changes with economic and technological advancements.

It was impossible to cover the entire atlantic coastline with experienced troops

You're trying to argue ideology, commies were and are since WWII prominent in your educational institutions and the government is run by liberal progressives and calls itself a liberal progressive government. The left dominating positions in social sciences, art, psychology etc that the youth attend and then imbibe what their leftist professors teach them and spout and spread it. There definitely aren't any proponents of an virulently opposing ideology present anywhere, most definitely nothing that takes any sort of racial angle (that isn't from the perspective/to the benefit of a non-white race/ethnicity).

>going against the cultural zeitgeist of the time is the same as being in a repressive totalitarian state that legislates them into laws.

Daily reminder German Americans left Germany because it was an overpopulated shithole in the 18th and early 19th century, and Prussia militarism and Austrian "despotism" made poor or liberal minded Germans fuck off to America.

Sweden as an archetype and progessively the rest of the West are legislating the ambiguous "hate speech" laws though, in case coercion, loss of livelihood and social isolation weren't already powerful enough incentives to keep people from speaking out against clown world. Also I'm Irish, not an Ameri or Continental Yuro-mutt.

>people can choose not to associate with me based upon my political views
>some of these people have signficant power
>it's basically nazi germany u guise
Kill yourself you fucking moron

Sorry where's the argument lad?

>the US is soft totalitarian progressive liberal
>Mike Pence is vice president and Republicans hold congress, the senate and the white house

>I am irish

*blocks your apu*

I can show you my passport if you're so adamant that everyone who disagrees with you is el abomonación

>muh gommunists in academia
Yeah, because it's kind of hard to be intelligent and not realize that communism is inevitable.

>implying you aren't a dual citizen

I'm 100% Gaelic phenotype you fucking smelly dirty angloid

good post

>100% gaelic prototype

/int/ shitposting needs to be banned

They should not lose next time then

Yes, winning the war would probably bolster the legitimacy of fascist governments and give credence to the notion that fascism is inherently superior to communism and liberalism.

Funny how even at the height of their military power the fascist puppet states in occupied countries were barely held together and had little public support.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 restricted citizenship not immigration. Non-whites were still allowed in the country without equal rights. It's not like white nationalists just want to denaturalize non-whites, they want them out completely, so the Naturalization Act of 1790 isn't exactly a good way to support that position.

Camps were for relocation, and Jews died from typhus thanks to allies destroying camps supply lines. Allies tried to shift the blame to Germans that just lost instead.

Survivor testimonies are a mixture of lies and stories from senile old women all of whom worth noting resided in these so called death camps without being put to the death. Worth noting is that no one ever talks about testimony from people who say that the Germans treated them just fine and that there was no extermination. This is expxlained away as only some camps being part of it. Well guess what, only those camps that the UN never inspected were actually deathcamps. One wonders if they would be death camps had the UN inspected them....

The mental gymnastics required to explain a mass campaign of murdering civilians and hiding all the evidence is insane. And yet, it makes perfect sense to just consider that Xyclon B was created and used for the purpose of disinfecting piles of clothes, to kill lice specifically, lice that spread typhus. That one giant wave of typhus killed a ton of people at the time is already a matter of public record.

On the subject of Jews being forcibly relocated from Germany, Hitler was right to do this. They were interfering in his country and were responsible for stabbing Germany in the back many times economically especially. Despite this Hitler mustered up a huge technological advantage and a powerful war machine intent on retaking the lands that were stolen from Germany at the end of World War 1.

And on the subject of Jewish interference, have you SEEN the US mass media? Do you realize that many politicians also hold dual citizenships in Israel. This makes no sense. You keep calling it the "deep state." Just call it what it is. Fucking Jews. Always jews.

Hitler was fucking right. If anything he was a god's blessed SAINT because he didn't promote their extermination when he probably should have given all the shit they pulled in Germany.

>a huge technological advantage
Please stop with this meme. I'm not even going to bother arguing with you about Holocaust denial or the Jewish conspiracy shit, it's been debunked hundreds of times and you brainlets won't budge. But this Nazi sooperveapon shit has got to fucking stop.

>allies destroying camps supply lines
Stopped reading there. All of this shit has been disproven countless times so why do you keep posting it?

>/pol/ hates Jews for supposedly being a fifth column and undermining their host nations
>/pol/ hates Americans of German descent for NOT being a fifth column and instead serving their host nation as good, patriotic Americans instead
>/pol/ literally wants German diaspora to literally start acting like the Jew

Are stormcucks even capable of realizing what vile hypocrites they are?

> Jews died from typhus thanks to allies destroying camps supply lines.
Please cite this with the same rigor that you demand of proof for "le holohoax"

Funny how the communist puppet states in Eastern Europe were barely held together and had little public support yet managed to survive over 40 years and might have lasted even longer if a liberal-minded reformer like Gorbachev hadn't taken the reins of the USSR.

The whole point of authoritarian regimes is that their existence is predicated on their ability to repress dissidence and inculcate the populace into rigorous adherence to the system. Procuring popular support is of marginal importance. Although there might be some half-assed attempts at economic reform in response to widespread disillusionment, a ruling clique isn't going to voluntarily relinquish power unless every vestige of its terror apparatus has been cauterized, or if a figurehead at the apex of the system is prepared to countenance reforms that threaten his own position.

thats why Berija was right

Well there was the quandary that'd pose over slaves and other chattel or labour needed temporarily on the railroads or whatever, "immigration" and importing millions of slaves is practically the same thing on a fundamental level I suppose as it concerns allowing people within your borders on your land. Doesn't make it any less of a country for whites pre-WWII though.

Whether or not the U.S. was intended to serve white interests is a separate question as to whether or not it allowed non-white immigration, which it did until rather late in its history. In fact, from 1924 to 1965 South and Eastern Europeans were restricted from entering while Latin Americans Afro-Caribbeans were still operating under an essentially open borders regime.

>1924-1965
>Afro-Caribbeans let in
Are you being disingenuous here? Why lump in post-WWII and post-WWI when the discussion hinges on the 1952 reforms doing away with the ability to racially discriminate for immigration? The 1924 one was even specifically (and you can even see this on the wiki for it) to preserve racial homogeneity, shit like the Cuban Adjustment Act were sneaky jewish tricks post 1952 and Hart-Cellar act aimed at destabilizing the socialist/commie governments that were arising by taking away all their professionals (along with a ton of "lumpen").
Discrimination against Eastern and Southern Europeans goes along with the policy of preserving racial homogeneity in the US which was Anglo, Scandinavian, German, and West/North European mainly. Also obviously fears of vodka niggers chimping out and doing a revolution or something.

>Latin Americans
Some were seen (and pretty much are in reality) as white, being descendants mainly of Spanish settlers, but the quotas for 1924 was 86% Northern European.

So in conclusion non-whites were allowed in sometimes, but excluded based on race and ethnicity most the time and given only a small portion of the quotas to preserve the white homogeneity of the US.

You’re an idiot. For the first hundred years or so the U.S. did not racially discriminate who was allowed to *immigrate* based on race. I started with 1924 because that was when the most sweeping immigration law was passed, and only targeted people from the eastern hemisphere, leaving Latin Americans and Afro-Caribbeans untouched. It’s funny how the people who white nationalists hate the most, blacks and Latinos, were literally allowed to immigrate here freely for several decades while their full-blooded European brethren. That’s not to say the Founding Fathers would have wanted equal rights for the former group, but the idea that their ideas corresponded to the modern WN concept of a pan-European whitopia is laughable and American history shows it.

>trusting ameriburgers to be good at war

wew

*while their full-blooded European brethren were restricted. Also if you Latinos are white not I hope you don’t mind them being the bulk of immigrants for the last several decades.

>For the first hundred years or so the U.S. did not racially discriminate who was allowed to *immigrate* based on race.
>they took in chattel and slaves and didn't naturalize them and I'm conflating this with immigration quotas and allowances even though they're only similar on a very basic fundamental level
YOU are the idiot here friendo, and I'm not sure what point you're honestly trying to establish against me bar trying to weasel around with semantics.

>leaving Latin Americans and Afro-Caribbeans untouched.
The 1924 Act leaves Latin Americans untouched and gives them a small quota still, you rather jewishly said 1924-1965 (I assume referring to the 1924 act and the 1965 one that removed racial quotas completely) though which would include thing like the Cuban Adjustment Act.

>It’s funny how the people who white nationalists hate the most, blacks and Latinos, were literally allowed to immigrate here freely for several decades
The 1924 Act,
>In addition, it severely restricted the immigration of Africans and banned the immigration of Arabs and Asians.
I don't know where you got the "blacks being allowed in" part from, and the act didn't entirely remove quotas for Eastern and Southern Europe, it just reduced them severely because of the contemporary uptick in the amount coming over through the system = red scare for Eastern Euros, there were more coming in from those regions than there were blacks total allowed to immigrate.

>but the idea that their ideas corresponded to the modern WN concept of a pan-European whitopia is laughable and American history shows it.
It corresponds to white nationalist views today in the sense that they viewed it as a homogeneous white nation/country for whites that needed to be preserved for whites, and the quotas show this as the vast vast majority not including Latin America were whites. White nationalism today would be more pessimistic and contemporary and just not allow them in let alone naturalize.

>implying Nazism was in any way viable long term

Whoever made the OP image is a historically ignorant, philosophically stunted faggot cuck who was probably a raging commie before he got partially mugged by reality and started waving a swastika banner around.

If they'd have won and beat the world it certainly would've been viable, but that's not the argument, which is what happend because they didn't win.

>For the first hundred years or so the U.S. did not racially discriminate who was allowed to *immigrate* based on race.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

Love when uneducated trash has the balls to call someone an idiot.

It's funny when white nationalists bring that obscure law up when it was repeatedly revised and lawyers so that it meant nothing by the mid 19th century.

Also, the hard core racists back in the 19th century like the KKK and the Know-Nothing party didn't consider Irish, Italians, or Slavs to be compatible with "Anglo-Celtic" civilization.

>blame Americans for killing millions of Europeans in a war the Nazis started

Gas yourself, Hans.

>100% Gaelic phenotype you fucking smelly dirty angloid

A claim of being Irish is easily dismissed when you make it in the most embarrassingly american way possible.

>Nazi soviet alliance
good meme

>obscure law
>provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship.
wew

>when it was repeatedly revised and lawyers so that it meant nothing by the mid 19th century.
not true at all, immigration was even more heavily discriminated racially after the civil war because southern retards couldn't bring slaves in anymore (since you conflate the two, immigration and chattel importation)

>Also, the hard core racists back in the 19th century like the KKK and the Know-Nothing party didn't consider Irish, Italians, or Slavs to be compatible with "Anglo-Celtic" civilization.
What ones talk about fucking "Anglo-Celtic" civilization? You're probably referring to Anglo-Protestant. Good thing they didn't actually achieve much legislatively to block people from Northern and Western Europe.

what would an ameri/anglo mutt know about that?