I am not really educated in history, but I'm curious to know specifically what caused the downfall of Nazi Germany...

Japan had a bigger navy because they got to keep their WW1 navy (because they were on the winning side of WW1) whereas Germany was forced to scrap theirs almost completely and was essentially forbidden to do any naval construction whatsoever while the Versailles treaty was still in effect.

>Dude, Hitler did NOT have to declare war on the US.
There had already been fighting going on before war broke out.
>The Japanese empire had a navy that was able to defeat the British and Dutch navies in the Pacific Isles.
Which between them, comprised of 2 fleet carriers, 1 light carriers, 5 battleships/battlecruisers and 8 cruisers. If you look at what the British alone have in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, you realize that that's a tiny commitment.

That is of course ignoring all the things like the difference in size and quality of land armies, or the overall industrial output, or the air production. You might find this educational, but I do have some doubts as to your ability to actually read. I would especially like to point out the table on page 27 of the PDF, which demonstrates that Japan's overall GDP was about 1.3 times that of Italy's.

warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ww2overview1998.pdf

>Does it really hurt to be this retarded?
Pot, meet kettle.

>There had already been fighting going on before war broke out.

No, there hasn't. Krautniggers basically started torpedoing civilian cargo vessels, and US issued an order for protective convoys. It was NOT an act of fucking war.

Stop trying to twist facts, dumb Stormnigger. It was the fucking Krauts who initiated agressionn in Europe, in BOTH WW1 AND WW2.

Germany lost the moment it crossed the borders of the Soviet Union. You can say “muh lend-lease” “muh Western Front” and “muh bombing campaign”, but simply put, it was a matter of time before the Germans would be on the retreat.

And not invading the USSR was also not an option. Stalin, as underprepared as he was to face an attack in ‘41, was planning to declare war after the expected Operation Sealion, which never occurred. So basically, Germany would end up crushing the UK at a terrible cost, only to face a Soviet onslaught.

>No, there hasn't. Krautniggers basically started torpedoing civilian cargo vessels, and US issued an order for protective convoys. It was NOT an act of fucking war.
Yes, that was what I'm referring to. U.S. vessels were protecting convoys around the East Coast and off the Icelandic and Greenland coasts; they would and did shoot at u-boats threatening them. This is an act of war, even if the Germans did start it.

>Stop trying to twist facts, dumb Stormnigger.
Learn to read you fucktard. Incidentally, I'm Jewish.

Basically what these guys are saying.
Germany went to war with the three strongest nations of the time and lost, what's surprising is that they lasted as long as they did.

Because Britain was uninvadable and against a truce with Germany, the only way the Nazis win WWII is to defeat the Soviet Union in 41. Maybe that would have been possible with competent Italian aid or something, but even then probably not.

You just can't declare war on four of the five most powerful countries in the world (with yourself being the other one) and expect to win.

The Japanese destroyed the bongs on land and sea and in the air. It was a comprehensive humiliation, no sense trying to sugar coat that. In many ways, it showed the world and all colonial peoples that the bong memepire was propaganda only, and they acted accordingly.

It's less surprising when you realize it took time for all three powers to truly concentrate their forces on Germany. Two powers were separated by an ocean, one of which had to mobilize a wartime economy from scratch, and the other was stumbling along from a surprise attack with its most productive regions lost. Once all three powers actually got their shit together 1943 onwards Germany was steamrolled in a predictable fashion.

But the bongs ended up defeating the Japanese.

>Invade Poland who is guaranteed by France and Britain
>Is surprised why Britain holds their promise
>Invade peaceful nations like Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia and Greece expecting no retaliation
>While the war is still going with the west, invade Soviet behemoth with delusional expectations
>Declare war on fucking USA for no reason then pride
>Soviets are biggest resource trader with you, selling tons of Oil, food, steel etc. to you, and now you ruin even this shit
>They destroy you at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk
>Resource are becoming scarce and depleted
>Treat occupied civilians abhorrently, so manny join partisants
>Bongs are bombing your cities
>Soviets are massacring your troops
>You give your own generals shit and prevent them from doing their own strategis
>Still by 1944 expect to win the war

There are many ways that Germany could have won the war, but all of them depended on the UK surrendering.

War is about pushing your enemy to the point where they surrender, it's not about destroying them. Had the drive on Moscow succeeded, it's possible the Politburo would have deposed of Stalin and offered a surrender. Had Rommel taken the Suez canal, it's possible the British would have negotiated for a truce.

All of these scenarios do not involve the total war that erupted, however. Germany could not win a total war.

They probably could've dealt with Europe, or at least fought Russia to a standstill. Where they really went wrong was declaring war on the US. It just wasn't smart to try to fight the US and Russia at the same time.

Also this Trump really is similar to Hitler in that they are both just quite incompetent, and unstable.

>decided to make a government with absolute power in a few peoples hands.
>they all turn out to be meth addicts
>commit national suicide
such is the fate of the authoritarian.
sic semper tyrannus

Attached: 1484254455743.gif (640x360, 496K)

Moscow meant nothing. The true aim of operation Barbarossa were the Oil Fields in the Caucasus. Oil which the Nazis desperately needed, or they would not be able to wage any kind of war.

He needed Mussolini in the war, which means he had to put up with his retarded antics in the levant and eastern mediterranean.

Ok, this I actually haven't heard anything about.

Hitler had almost nothing to do with the Heer.

>The true aim of operation Barbarossa were the Oil Fields in the Caucasus.
This was not in any way the true aim of Barbarossa, which was to advance to Leningrad-Moscow-Stalingrad axis and destroy the Soviet armies in the west.

>Oil which the Nazis desperately needed, or they would not be able to wage any kind of war.
Yet they managed to wage the war for 6 years without that oil.

>This was not in any way the true aim of Barbarossa, which was to advance to Leningrad-Moscow-Stalingrad axis and destroy the Soviet armies in the west.
Yes, sorry. That was the point of Edelweiss, not Barbarossa. Edelweiss was what Hitler pushed for, but his generals that he "reprimanded" went for Moscow-Leningrad instead.
>Yet they managed to wage the war for 6 years without that oil.
They weren't waging war after 1942, they were in various states of collapse military collapse. Their entire tactical effort relied on fast moving tank divisions and panzergrenadiers, which they couldn't do because no fuel. Look up pictures of the German east front and you will see artillery being drawn by horse.

>Had the drive on Moscow succeeded,
It never wouldn't tho, it would just create anothe much earlier Stalingrad compromise, Soviets alrady pulled off their far east division out and back to the german front and mobilised army to another 2 millions.
Soviet invasion was doomed from the start.

Attached: ! .jpg (725x729, 148K)

>They weren't waging war after 1942

Attached: AjEjFXv.png (380x264, 70K)

Oh sure, I agree with this. It's just seems so odd in retrospect that so many people were so naive about Nazi German intentions for so long. I can kinda get it being that way in the US, but Britain and Russia? Britain was bombed by the Germans in ww1 and Russia was defeated in the field.

>at least fought Russia to a standstill
Germany and it's Axis buddies didn't have the manpower reserves for that

>Britain was bombed by the Germans in ww1
What is that supposed to prove? That Germans defeated Britain in WW1?

No, where would you even get that from what I said? The only thing what I said is supposed to prove is that the leaders of certain nations in europe were a bit too naive and trusting when it came to Hitler, the party he led and their intentions towards Europe as a whole.

Basically, my opinion is that Germany should have been invaded in 1936 or so and the whole sorry fracas should have been stopped before it even started.

>Germany should have been invaded in 1936 or so and the whole sorry fracas should have been stopped before it even started
That's all fine in retrospect but at the time no one wanted to be the guy who pulled the trigger for another European war when the last one was so fresh in the public mind

posts like these are the problem with Veeky Forums

this is possibly the dumbest post i’ve seen on this board. fuck off to hoi4.

Germany should've been invaded in 1871 to stop the Hun menace at its root.

France should have joined Austria in the War of 1866 to put an end to the Prussian cancer

Was that really necessary?

>implying they have logistic capability to do that
>implying that city fighting would be easy
>implying that leaving Greeks ruining wild on Balkans and British bombers in range of Romanian oil fields would be great idea
>
>implying he actually did not give his army order to stand ground
>implying that his generals were loyal and competent and not sabotaging him in first place
>implying that he should not purge army like Stalin did

Most of their artillery was drawn by horse.
And supply train.
That is why their food production plummeted - because they draft mena nd horses to army.
That is why they keep kholhos in Soviet conquered lands - so they can supply their army with food.
That is why war on East turned into such a mess. Bad German logistic - soldiers foraging for food - starving peasants - resistace - slaughter.

France and England believed Hitler would focus on the USSR so they let him rise to power and appeased until their plan backfired.

How the fuck is he going to focus on the SU with Poland in the way?

Go through Romania or Finland instead of poland? They seemed fine letting Germany have Czechoslovakia and Austria.

>Invade through Romania
The nightmare has become real

How the fuck would Germany go through Finland which is farther away than where the Nazis reached historically?

They were able to wage war with increasingly constricted supplies of oil, but only a defensive one with continuously decreasing effectiveness, which isn't conducive to any kind of victory.

The thing is, Germany could have had 1000 times the oil, they would've been limited to a defensive war.

They were allied with Finland. It's not impossible for them to move a few million troops there, a few million to Romania, then do a giant pincer.

>they would've been limited to a defensive war
A much more effective one though.

You know things like supply are generally important in a war right?

They were not allied with Finland, and if moving a few million troops to Finland was an option, why didn't they do it in real life?

It would've helped if Hitler didn't listen to Göring for Dunkirk

>They weren't waging war after 1942
>they were in various states of collapse military collapse
The war continued for three more years, user

In his defence, Germany never regained the strategic initiative after Fall Blau

What would have been the difference? No slave labor in Poland would have been a big deal.

The Germans weren't allied with Finland? That's news to me. Afaik Germans and finns fought side by side from the continuation war through Leningrad.

>What would have been the difference?
Romanian railways sucked dick is a starter, complete failure to almost wipe out the VSV on day one is another

What's the VSV?

he probably meant Soviet Air Forces (VVS)

Yes they did fight for 4 years while under blockade but the German military was crippled by shortages of resorces

This meme of soviet invincibility needs to die, the idea that in no world could the nazis beat the siviets is bullshit

The only way it could have won was if the Politburo had caved in. Stalin himself believed that they would, so it's not an unfeasible scenario.

But yeah, from a numbers perspective it was an impossible task.

It was France and anyone who says otherwise is an eternal Anglo tbqh

>That's news to me.
I would imagine a lot of historical facts are indeed "news" to you.

Wrong, you dumb fuck. From 1944 onward, Bongs slaughtered Nips in Burma, and on the sea (Brits helped US navy out at Okinawa)

In August of 1945 British were already prepearing for retaking of Singapore.

No, that was NOT an act of war, you inbred nigger. Krautniggers declared war on US, no more, no less.

You learn to read.

They got zerg rushed. Red team should be fucking banned for wanting to not be genocided desu

Shooting at the armed forces of another nation, however justified, is an act of war.