/k/ - Weapons

Yolo

>>615273

>targeting cities which had no military value, only political (like Leningrad St. Petersburg, Stalingrad Volgograd)

>refuse tactical retreat

>cover the retreating fleeing german troops with demoralized ragtag foreign military forces

>allows the SS to commit sabotage on foreign allies like killing officers by fucking up their planes

>spearding lies on the situation which reach the troops on the front (which technically zero'ed the remaining moral and trust)

- It could be work if they admit it they fucked up the march and just retreat before the winter went batshit insane

- it could be work if they went for the resources, which would not scare Stalin and his cronies so they would continue on killing the command chain (Zhukov was almost executed by commie fools)

- It could be worked if the german command chain would give a middle finger for Hitler

>>615283

The St. Petersburg offensive was a reasonable enough move, having full control of the Baltic would have helped quite a bit with their logistical issues.

>>615273

>>615273

Thats the Problem.

He wasn't thinking.

Going south for the caucasus oilfields was Hitlers idea. He was well aware of the resource shortages Germany was facing, since he was dealing with much more than military matters, in contrast to his generals.

Guderian disobeyed his orders and concentrated his forces to capture moscow.

Guderian and most of the general staff were the ones who didn't take the resource question seriously enough. They didn't know enough about econonics and the resources needed to keep a war economy running.

Btw, the Ardenne offensive was supported by Hitler as well and he had to fight his general staff to get it done.

He should have had focused on north africa first

Postpone Barbarossa to '42

Throw everything at north africa/middle east

Focus on starving britain out but DONT bomb civilian cities, focus on ports and large airfields

Capture Suez and Iraq (Iraq had a little bit of oil at that time

Pressure Iran into alliance (Iran had already axis leaning Shah at that point but later in the war Allies invaded Iran and toppled the gov preemptively)

If this happened UK would be pretty demoralized in late '41 after losing Egypt and middle east, plus India would be put under pressure from the west and east (japs) and naval transport could be even more threatened, so reasonably speaking brits would be at almost 5 000 00 casualties and under huge economical pressure. Peace agreement could be possible.

In '42 soviet union would be more than ready for war but with now facing a stronger, better supplied and more battle hardened Wehrmacht plus better peppered Italian expeditionary force, with threatened southern flank via Iran and less landlease as German kreigsmarine could focus entirely on blocking soviet ports in the European theater

>>615303

If the Japs could be convinced to ignore the US and attack the Soviets from the East concurrently with Barbarossa shit would have gone even better.

>>615305

Japs couldnt do shit to Soviet Union as soviets had over 50 divisions on the border for the duration of whole war and Jap land army was shit, its bulk was bogged down in china and they didnt even had proper equipment to take out Soviet tanks

>>615273

He was thinking that he needed to capture the oil fields to keep his mechanized units fueled and fighting. His generals were thinking that if they captured Moscow the Russians would have rolled over like the French.

Hitler was right to push for the oil, his generals were wrong to push for Moscow. The only thing they would have achieved in taking Moscow would be rail lines that would have been dynamited by retreating Russians. Communists will throw every man, woman, and child into a meat grinder to hold onto power.

>>615303

>Throw everything at north africa/middle east

>Capture Suez and Iraq (Iraq had a little bit of oil at that time

How logistically plausible was this? The forces the Axis already had in north Africa were enough to overburden their thin supply lines, going deeper with more divisions would've made supply even harder.

>>615305

Japan was fighting in China during all of WW2. They wouldn't have been able to take out the Soviets and push through Siberia. On the other hand basically guaranteeing Stalin that they wouldn't attack was just as reatrded.

>>615296

Wasn't it Hitler and WW1 generals stopping Guderian and Rommel from further advancing? Dunkirk would have never happened if these two could have advanced further.

The Wehrmacht would have heavily extended the frontline but this was nothing compared to the extended French frontline. The UK and France were unable to conduct encirclements and (considering they would manage to create them) destroy pockets.

>>615320

Basically this. The IJN would have been almost worthless in an invasion as well.

>>615283

>- it could be work if they went for the resources, which would not scare Stalin and his cronies so they would continue on killing the command chain (Zhukov was almost executed by commie fools)

but they did not go for the resources (focus on southern front) because of OKH's decision, Halder wanted to solve this just like he solved france and wanted to go for the mosow because he was a fucking autist

Hitler was well aware of the situation and wanted to grab southern resources and starve out soviet union while attaining much needed oil that axis forces were always short on. If they went for the southern front the russians would be not only starved of food but also much lower on fuel.

German staff just wanted to play around with tanks and win their little battles instead of focusing on the strategic level of the war, they basically decided to do it their own way and ignored the plans

>>615320

this, they would need to change their thinking way earlier on and invest in their army instead of the navy

>>615346

>Wasn't it Hitler and WW1 generals stopping Guderian and Rommel from further advancing

I wouldn't trust the books written by German generals after the war, they have a habit of blaming everything on Hitler even if it was their fault.

>>615287

>>615296

>>615348

>>615349

Looks like you guys know something which i don't. So technically not Hitler was the napoleon-autist faggot who went after Moscow as a symbol of superiority? So taking Stalingrad as a mockery on Stalin wasn't his plan? As a political show off? I seriously asking these because i read couple of books on this shit show and im not sure what was propaganda and what not.

>>615289

That's actually makes sense, but i doubt it would work out for them. The german navy was abysmal and even if they got rid of the commie navy the brit fleet would be still in their asses.

>>615326

> the Russians would have rolled over like the French.

Trying to scare a russian is like trying to drown a fish.

>>615326

>Communists will throw every man, woman, and child into a meat grinder to hold onto power.

As if NatSoc germany didnt do the same

>>615439

No they didn't

>>615351

>The german navy was abysmal and even if they got rid of the commie navy the brit fleet would be still in their asses.

What are you talking about?

German surface navy was the strongest in a Baltic and UK had absolutely no entry into the Baltic, it was suitable for its task and for the most of the war Baltic was firmly in the hands of Germans

>>615440

>What was Volkssturm

>>615440

Yes they did, they even built suicide airplanes for kids to fly like rammjager or he-162s. Near the end of the war they routinely conscripted old people and women.

Both Germany and Russia were in a total-war economy, which meant old people (grannies and grandpas) did the farming and food production along with the little girls; the women did the manufacturing along with the little boys; and the men did the dying. It was the same in both countries, with minor exceptions.

In those stressful situations humans tend to stratify pretty regularly into classes, almost like an anthill. Vietnam and North Korean societies did something similar, as did the American South during the civil war.

>>615445

A very romantic and insane idea. Also, not that you are wrong, but in the case of the USSR it was the Red Army that used women and children. Germans had to be autistic about this too, and although they did widen the age limit for the Heer to 16-60, they had to make a completely new organization for this. The Volksturm was supposed to be the local defence organization of the NSDAP, completely independent of all other armed forces. From a practical (and cruel) point-of-view it makes sense to give some guns to the grandpas and boys whose factories and fields are now on the other side of the front, because at least they will slow down the enemy instead of burdening your logistics as refugees. But according to propaganda they were supposed to fight in an apocalyptic last war that will decide everything for Germany.

>>615446

>Near the end of the war they routinely conscripted […] women.

I know that they were in the air defence units, and the SS had a woman's organization that helped with administrative duties (and ran some concentration camps), but were they conscripted into actual front line units?

>>615450

They were in frontline units, shooting real bullets at T-34s. Unlike the old men, the German women actually slowed down the Russians for hours at a time.

>>615457

You meant that USSR defended itself and employed last resort strategies when it was nearing collapse in 1941 against the invading german army?

>>615450

>>615455

>A very romantic and insane idea.

Insane: yes

Romantic: fuck no. What is romantic about sending children and old men (never women in combat roles contrary to what >>615446 claims) to their death?

>>615446

>rammjager

Specifically designed so it wasn't a suicide plane

>he-162

What the fuck are you talking about? A plane made out of cheap materials that still outperformed most allied aircraft in the skies at the time.

>hey routinely conscripted old people

No, they conscripted teenagers

>women

Kek, no

Don't try to assert opinions on things you don't have a clue about, leaf

>>615464

>Romanticism isn't about holding the hands of a girl in a candle-lit room.

I never said that and I accuse you of strawmaning.

I am saying that sending kids to their death is not an act of romanticism (the idea that the individual's feelings and emotions direct their actions and can lead to them doing amazing feats). It would be romantic if all these boys and old men had signed up out of free will, but that wasn't the case in most circumstances, despite what propaganda has you believe.

>>615466

>>hey routinely conscripted old people

>No, they conscripted teenagers

Entirely false. They primarily conscripted old people.

>>615468

Now that I think about it you are correct. The average German teenager didn't have the time to listen to nazi propaganda, because he was busy rescuing jews from the rampaging Polish death squads.

>>615475

Communists and ally apologists will always deny this

<"we're fighting to save europe from totalitarian dictatorship"

>after war half of europe is under totalitarian dictatorship

Worse allied meme next to "lol what 10,000 missing danzigs"

>>615474

I am not disputing the fact that teens signed up, or that they were eager to do so. But there is a difference between conscripting anyone above the age of 16 and boys signing up out of their own free decision.

>>615273

>What was he thinking

Take the only chance he had at winning before Stalin was finished building up his military to steamroll Germany?

Lots of people who are brainwashed by Jewish history forgery in here.

>>615341

And where do you take the fuel from to run such an airfleet?

>>615475

>or stay in the defense and loose 100%, making all of Europe communist.

How is staying in the defense worse than being in the offense?

I mean even if USSR invaded its troops would have lower morale, best generals would still be in gulags and Europe would get a surge of anti Bolshevik volunteers even larger than historically

The narrative of

>muh preemptive strike

is retarded, face it. Hitler though that USSR is weak and ripe for conquest and german superiority delusion was all time high after defeating (presumably at that time) best army in the world (the french)

>Worse allied meme next to "lol what 10,000 missing danzigs"

You mean 10.000 missing poles murdered by germans in danzing?

>>615487

>>or stay in the defense and loose 100%, making all of Europe communist.

>

>How is staying in the defense worse than being in the offense?

Because you're doomed to lose because of your lack of resources?

Your your brain once in your life. Also, you're retarded beyond down syndrome if you think Stalin didn't plan to attack once Germany was weakened enough by the allies. You also kind of forget the atrocities poles commited against Germans after ww1.

>>615489

>because of your lack of resources?

But USSR supplied all the resources needed to Germany up until Barbarossa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_(1940)

>atrocities poles commited against Germans after ww1.

You mean plebiscites conducted on contested lands in with germans resorted to cheating?

Or maybe you confused it with atrocities conducted by germans against Polish people?

>>615455

>jewish edgelord commies come to raze and rape your cities

>"wtf why are the volksturm fighting back, this is barbaric"

>>615493

but it said so in der sturmer so it must be true

>>615496

>german edgelord nazis come to raze and rape your cities

>"wtf why are the russians fighting back, this is barbaric"

>>615498

>polish mongols come to dry hump tanks on horseback

>germans fight back

<"WTF POLAND IS BEING ATTACKED"

>>615502

>usa bullies smaller countries all around the world

>on 9/11 Talibans try to fight back

<"WTF USA IS BEING ATTACKED"

>>615503

Those yankees did deserve 9/11. I'm of the opinion that there were no planted explosives/thermite and God himself made the towers collapse to punish the Jew Yorkers

>>615506

>no planted explosives/thermite

I will destroy that shitty idea once and for all.

>>615273

>>>/his/

>>615522

The downward motion was due to gravity.

The relative lack of sideways motion was due to the lack of a net sideways force.

The plumes of dust, smoke, and debris blowing out of the windows during the collapse was due to the sudden increase in internal pressure caused by the top of the building coming down on the rest, compressing the air in each floor space, like a piston until the air blew out the windows.

This isn't difficult to understand, anyone who has been through a Physics 1 course in college, or Statics and Dynamics, would have a good grasp on these basic principals.

Draw a free body diagram and account for all the forces, and you will see there is no need for explosives or any other devices or measures to assist the collapse. When the top started falling every floor that collapsed added to the mass moving downward and made it that much harder for each successive floor to resist the falling portion.

He couldn’t have realistically won the war to begin with

>>615642

He can.

The Allies made some very big strategical mistakes by letting him invading Poland and Eastern Europe.

But the thing is Hitler also made a strategical mistake i.e. attacking Russia, or at least not teaming up with Japan in double fucking Russia.

>>615489

The whole USSR would have made the whole Europe if the Nazis didn't invade is truly a myth.

The fact the USSR got strong as it is because of Allies's aid in WW2.

If only Germany has stayed the hands and strengthened itself and fortified Eastern Europe.

>>615642

He very nearly did and would have if he did not make so many mistakes.

>>615674

>The whole USSR would have made the whole Europe if the Nazis didn't invade is truly a myth

Now I finally understand why people don't take the gookposter seriously.

>>615452

>>615453

Around here there was supposed to be a civilian woman that volunteered to replace the injured loader of a I think it was Waffen-SS Tiger when the russians arrived. Made a few successful counterattacks to cover the retreating infantry and civilians before retreating too, woman survived and was dropped off at a village where she had relatives, no idea what happened to the tank crew later. I can ask my old man later for more details, he knows the full story

>>615446

Rammjäger were volunteers

>>615723

>loses war

>>615450

>makes an entire essay post about volkssturm

>but were they conscripted into actual front line units

What the fuck?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkssturm

>The Volkssturm (German pronunciation: [ˈfɔlks.ʃtʊɐm], "people's storm"[1][2]) was a national militia established by Nazi Germany during the last months of World War II.

>On 12 February 1945, the Nazis conscripted German women and girls into the auxiliaries of the Volkssturm.[16]

>Correspondingly, girls as young as 14 years were trained in the use of small arms, panzerfausts, machine guns, and hand grenades from December 1944 through May 1945.[17]

You could have googled it.

They were desperation conscripts, sent out to be meat shields and cannon fodder to delay the Russians long enough for Germany to build a wunderwaffe. And it was precisely these women that the Russians raped, they didn't go after civilians but after the militiawomen blackmailed or forced by the SS to oppose regular soviet army units. For some reason the Germans only put the female units around berlin, which is Soviet area of conquest, not that the Americans behaved any better to the little German boys.

>In one representative village just north of Bad Windsheim, the Herbolzheim Volkssturm unit, with its customary composition of elderly men and young boys under the influence of a few regular army soldiers, foolishly declared the town a fortress and laid mines in the streets. As American troops approached in midmorning on April 12, shots from the village rang out. Angered, the Americans commenced a two-hour artillery barrage complemented by aerial attacks that gutted the town with incendiary and high-explosive bombs. With their village engulfed in flames, the civilian inhabitants, mostly the elderly, women, and children, fled in search of shelter to the surrounding fields, all the while under American fire.[23]

>>615475

>stay in the defense and loose 100%, making all of Europe communist.

But they did lose 100% and all of Europe is currently communist. What exactly did attacking Russia accomplish except make the destruction of Germany that much faster?

Without Barbarossa, the allies wouldn't have received a respite from 3/4 of the German army going to the eastern front, and Stalin would not have the impetus or the reason to turn USSR into a total-war economy. T-34 would likely never have been invented because the commies would decide it's a "wasteful project" like the jet fighter borovkov-florov, and if NKVD tried conscripting women and children without the obvious threat of utter extinction the people would have overthrown stalin.

Stalin was massing fortificatons and BT2 tanks on the border, the army that would enter Germany would be similar to the army that entered Finland. Russians suck at offense, he would have entered german territory, got his ass kicked, and retreated never to be seen again. The allies alone couldn't have taken down or even seriously injured Germany.

Arguably, if barbarossa didn't solidify the opposition, Nazi Germany could have existed well into the 70s or 80s even if their spies didn't get them nukes.

>>615744

>T-34 would likely never have been invented because the commies would decide it's a "wasteful project"

>T-34

>Designed 1937–1940

>Produced 1940–1958

u fookin wot m8?

>>615745

Production in 1940 was 400 tanks.

Production in 1941 was 35,000 tanks.

Can you think of a reason why?

>>615747

>Can you think of a reason why?

Gearing up for upcoming German invasion?

>>615742

>it was precisely these women that the Russians raped, they didn't go after civilians

Fuck off Jew.

>>615727

Why exactly?

>>615742

>Russians raped only and only female conscripts

Sound like total horseshit m8.

>>615748

If they were gearing up for a german invasion, it would have been way more in 1940.

>>615739

>And again with Barbarossa, some generallissimo mcmuffin the junior weakened the crucial southern flank and threw shit at Moscow and other tourist attractions.

You are aware that the only person with the power to do that was Hitler right? Some 'generallissimo mcmuffin the junior' can't decide on his own to move his junior command north from the south. Anyway, going for Moscow was the right move, if anything it was Hitlers move south that was wrong. Moscow was an important logistical and communications centre as well as the capital of the USSR, German troops were position to take it before the push south when they then had to be used to support that operation and then moved north again(even so they got a mere handful of Kilometres away from the Kremlin). Moving south only served to isolate large portions of the army.

>>615742

>declare your position a fortress

>enemy troops assault your fortress

>fucking American war criminals!

In the same post as

>Soviets are good bois who dindu nuffin to civilians!

I don't even know who your mental gymnastics are supposed to support, but they're certainly remarkable.

>>615351

Read Hitler's War by David Irving, or search /pol for audio anon's reading of it. Best WWII book ever written, and it was actually taught from in US Army was colleges until the smear brigade realized he doesn't cover the Holocaust.

Basically, Hitler had control only where he was looking, otherwise all these other interests took over. His goal was always to take the oilfields, while the generals wanted political victory (and some were just straight up traitors, as proven by the fallout from Valkyrie). Hitler got sick for about a week (bunker air) and precisely then the generals started shifting good troops to attack Moscow instead of the caucuses. After he was back in charge, it was a fait accompli, so he went ahead with it. Realizing his mistake, he never trusted his underlings again, and by the end of the war he was a nervous wreck running on nothing but willpower and strange injections because he tried to run the war alone.

>>615782

>His goal was always to take the oilfields,

The original goal was always to take Moscow, not the oil fields. The initial offences were heading towards that objective, he then changed it just on the verge of taking Moscow. He did not use the oilfields as justification either(well not the USSR ones), his reason for the southern move was to take Crimea in order to protect Rumania and her oil fileds from air attacks, The Caucusus was a secondary objective which is why he then resumed the move towards Moscow after Crimea.

>>615784

Lies

>>615784

What if he and Mussolini tried to capture Gibraltar prior to Barbarossa?

Would burgers have invaded Spain instead of Sicily in that event?

And what would had happen if Spain joined the axis? I know they were recovering from the Spanish Civil War, but I could imagine Spain to be a tough enemy to take for the allies, giving much needed troops and supply to Germany to defend the Atlantic coastline. So that much more advanced German divisions could had been diverted to the Soviet front.

If i'll ever be so unfortunate and have to visit Br*tian, i would locate Ch*rchills grave and piss on it

rate and subscribe

>>615351

>Looks like you guys know something which i don't. So technically not Hitler was the napoleon-autist faggot who went after Moscow as a symbol of superiority? So taking Stalingrad as a mockery on Stalin wasn't his plan? As a political show off? I seriously asking these because i read couple of books on this shit show and im not sure what was propaganda and what not.

As far as strategic goals go Moscow was nearly irrelevant, only strategically relevant thing with Moscow was it being railroad hub. The most important strategic goals for Germany was securing OIL and FOOD. Capturing Moscow did nothing to secure those goals. FOOD was in Ukraine. OIL in Caucasus. Every man, horse and tank wasted on trying advance on Moscow was wasted. Not to mention time. Ukraine was quite conveniently on the way to Caucasus. Stalingrad had importance as it is river Volga, a major transport route, something far more important than any symbolic value of name. It was fine point tie down Soviet troops. Basically what Germans were supposed to do with Moscow was bombing rail yards, bridges and shit, also maybe some specific industrial targets and HQ's. But generally just harass Soviets there.

>That's actually makes sense, but i doubt it would work out for them. The german navy was abysmal and even if they got rid of the commie navy the brit fleet would be still in their asses.

German navy might be weak when compared to US Navy or Royal Navy, but Soviets were bottled up in Leningrad on from day one after Barbarossa began. Only thing Soviet Navy could do during the war was operating with handful of submarines from Leningrad. Baltic was important as shipping route for Germans, they needed Swedish iron ore.

How Barbarossa should have gone:

1. Secure Baltic States, siege Leningrad. Defend those gains with some mobile reserves.

2. Everything else towards Ukraine and Caucasus.

They got to almost to the goals in Caucasus, had they ignored Moscow in late 1941, they would have made further into east in south by winter 41-42, there is a chance that they would have made it on summer 42. Caucasus was also a major shipping route for Lend-Lease shipments from US.

>>615490

It was the generals that fucked up with Barbarossa. They simply didn't understand how economy works, tactical victories were more important to them than strategic goals.

>>615777

There isn't much FOOD and OIL in Moscow. The two things German war economy needed keep running desperately. Kremlin was a fucking tourist attraction.

>>615809

/int/ out of ten.

It was autism and it was on the KC 8chan. Please leave.

>>615817

Never

It posted on here before i posted on gaysea

>>615351

>navy the brit fleet would be still in their asses.

Brits were too pussy to step in Baltic.

>The german navy was abysmal

Anyway German Navy and AF pushed commie shit hard and locked them in Leningrad for good.

>>615800

They would be a second, even more useless Italy. Nothing but a drain on German resources.

>>615800

They would've been an Italy tier ally and would've collapsed/gotten overrun almost instantly

>>615822

I miss KC /int/ posting. It was the friendliest international banter you could have anywhere on the internet.

Kohlchan just isn't the same.

>>615816

>As far as strategic goals go Moscow was nearly irrelevant, only strategically relevant thing with Moscow was it being railroad hub.

That's not a small thing. Moscow wasn't a railway hub, nor were its resource reserves empty, it was practically the beating heart of the entire railway system in European Russia and the cornerstone of all major logistical movement from further East. The capture or denial by damage of this nexus has horrendous knock-on effects to the Soviet war effort. It means no supplies moving where they need to be at further railyards and then on to truck depots. It means the cutting of a central place to distribute lend-lease coming from ports in the north, south and east alike. It means the uncontrollable unraveling of exceedingly important aspects of the teetering war effort.

Also of import are the electric generators and substations in the vicinity of Moscow & Gorky, of which it can be said, 'destroying just two thirds of the turbines would have knocked out about 75 percent of the power used by the Soviet defence industry, and only two smaller energy centers behind the Urals and in the Soviet Far East would have been left intact.' The death rattle of Soviet industry would swiftly grind out, and a substantial portion of lend-lease would from America would be turbine components to try to reconstruct the plants. But the Germans only realized to target these plants with Operation Eisenhammer in 1943, far later than necessary with far scanter resources available than were needed, and the plan would never go through for numerous stumbling blocks.

Moscow is important. Moscow needs to be taken, not as a symbol, but as a vital element of the total war for both sides. It is not a pure political target. But you have to choose; either go for broke with the earliest rush to Moscow possible, which is for the most part unfeasible without a substantially improved German logistical train and weapons to improve and secure her pace of advance, to 'kick in the door and let the whole rotten structure collapse,' or you bite and hold at vital economic flanks, trip the colossus and beat him to death, seizing Moscow in the second campaign season.

Without some very substantial changes over OTL, you cannot follow and carry out Hitler's triple-target plan in one year or even come close; it is indeed best to bite and hold onto two at most and strike Moscow's vital points with gun and bomb. Instead, the generals continued to argue for Moscow, Hitler ordered ahead/relented to Operation Typhoon in the fall, and taken by fury at its failure & the unauthorized withdrawal of the untenable front lines, reactively demanded their defense- which he may not have done had he been asked to authorize the withdrawal in the first place- after repeatedly having been gone around by his increasingly mistrusted generals. The rest is history.

>>615351

Hitler was concerned with controlling resources and land both to deny them to the enemy and use them to prop up his war economy. He wanted to starve the Soviets of food and fuel and wait for them to crumble on their own before delivering a final blow. Hitler's generals ignored him and went to fight the war as if the SU was France and made a beeline for Moscow because they thought controlling it force a surrender.

>>615762

>muh kikepedia

>>615766

>jeeeew

>>615770

>total horseshit

Come the fuck on, you need better arguments.

Russians didn't come into contact with female german civilians, that's why rapes didn't happen. Not because Russians are somehow magically have no testosterone or dicks. Russians troops just didn't get the same freedom of movement as American troops, their own leadership didn't want them to be corrupted from loyalty to the state by some golden snatch.

Also the stasi was instituted so fast that there was simply no occupational period where Russians had to police German streets, the situation was far more involved on the Western side which led to a lot of negermischelange, because US troops did spend a lot of time with civilians, spending their pay in German bars and so on.

Situation was similar to Japan, where every other weekday some schoolgirl gets torn apart by marine dicks.

>>615780

>Soviets are good bois who dindu nuffin to civilians!

Soviets killed civilians, and starved and impoverished them, and occasionally tortured them for having wrongthink opinions. They even raped them, when it was ordered.

They very rarely did anything that wasn't written down though.

>>615873

Yeah they fucking do, they occupy Berlin, Saxony and such.

To think they have magic dicks that can only rape women conscripts.

You are spouting almost insane bullshit.

>>615876

Well to be fair you're helping me spout insane bullshit by selectively reading it to sound insane in the first place. In fact you'll probably take this as admitting it, instead of telling you to pay better attention, like some kind of faggot.

>>615879

You are a moron if communists write exactly who they rape and kill in their good goys book.

Communist written record is not to be trusted, let alone what they do not write down.

>>615839

RIP imageboard culture of serious disgussion.

>>615880

Do you think western sources are unbiased? Or that German ones are? Don't take things at face value.

>>615921

This is true but Russian sources are notoriously biased and also unreliable. What one must realise is that Russian soldiers were not allowed to keep a diary and any book they wrote had to be within party lines.

>>615925

Russian sources are famous for being biased because Western sources can't stop talking about how biased Russian sources are, thus generating the notoriety from whole cloth. If you dig into the actual numbers both are incredibly biased, but western sources are even better at word games and mind fuckery.

>>615921

Western sources at least pretend to be accurate.

There is no such pretension for the Soviet. Lying for the greater good is good.

>>615777

You really have no idea how military organizations work do you? It's not a video game. You're dealing with humans, not with computers.

>>615983

Still, it is true that Hitler and his generals should share a single vision instead of splintering itself.

This mistake also brought down the jap military i.e. the internal competition between the jap navy vs jap army.

>>615983

… Where to even begin? I don't think I will bother. if you don't have an argument don't reply.

>>616011

It was.

They had poor logistics everywhere, Stalingrad only made it worse.

Easily, they were on the way to doing it before being redirected and even after that they still got very close to the Kremlin.

He did. He viewed all his Generals as being incompetent and himself as being the saviour of Germany, he was quite controlling of everything. Every movement from Divisional level above had to go through him, often he would even intervene on a smaller scale than this.

>>615946

>independent.UK

>theguardian.com

>telegraph.UK

>dailymail.UK

>youtube

>EN.wikipiedia

Really unbiased sources there

>>616022

>your sources are biased

>despite sources being posted to counteract the pro-communist faggot who provided none at all

Go ahead, link to anything that emphatically claims the Soviets didn't rape their way through Poland and Germany in 1944/45. I guarantee the best you can do is provide some leftist bullshit.

>>615873

Most Russian soldiers during the time talk about the rapes themselves. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Wrote a poem about it and thought about it when he was gulaged.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Nights

The little daughter’s on the mattress,

Dead. How many have been on it

A platoon, a company perhaps?

A girl’s been turned into a woman,

A woman turned into a corpse.

It's all come down to simple phrases:

Do not forget! Do not forgive!

Blood for blood! A tooth for a tooth!

>>616022

Its basically #metoo about fictional crimes 80 years ago while german police are literally holding german women down so muslim micropenises could soil them properly.

>>616025

>pro communist

Thems fighting words bud.

>>616214

I don't know why the fuck did your canadian ass go so far to defend Soviet crimes, are you some kind of cuck slav?

>>616214

>Thems fighting words bud.

Man enough to meet me in a holmgang then leaf-stain?

>>616214

>>616260

>Aussie and leaf fighting

Can the world handle the shitposting?

>>616260

The question is are you woman enough to get holmgang raped.

>>616022

Atleast he has sources

>>616399

>no flag

>tually

>>615742

>And it was precisely these women that the Russians raped, they didn't go after civilians

Wow, great to know, let me call my Uroma and let her know that she was only gangraped by Soviets because they thought she was in the Volkssturm. I'll call my Oma too and let her know that Soviet sub-humans only held her 3 year old self, at gun point so her mom wouldn't fight back, because these honorable liberators thought she was in the Volkssturm.

Can someone fucking rake us already?

>>615273

Sun Tzu said that civilian leaders should not dictate military decisions and vice versa for military leaders dictating civilian decisions.

>>616458

>Soviets couldn't even meet 60% of their equipment requirements for all units in 1941

>They had an ammo shortage in the order of 90% in the case of heavy artillery

<THEY WERE GOING TO INVADE!!!!11111

>>617206

I'm sure the Polish in 1933 felt safe in the knowledge that Germany would never threaten them again since the German army was so small and underequipped. USSR never had the potential to snowball, I mean just look history. You should always wait and let your enemies arm themselves and get into positions before you declare war.

>>617211

Except the Polish KNOW the Germans are going to rearm though.

And it takes them 6 years, it's part of the poles fault that they didn't ram up their own military force.

>USSR never had the potential to snowball, I mean just look history. You should always wait and let your enemies arm themselves and get into positions before you declare war.

Like when actually? You can't say it because at its strongest state, the USSR has never dared to venture past Berlin.

>>617247

>it's part of the poles fault that they didn't ram up their own military force.

Considering that IInd polish republic was much poorer, 1/3 as populous and not as industrialized as germany i would say we never had a chance

>>617250

I'm not going to touch the german/polish matter but I think if germans has stopped at just Poland and eastern Europe, we would still have the Reich now.

It's very unlikely Poland is going to be destroyed either, most likely they are going to raise a far right government if the war is over.

>>617211

>USSR never had the potential to snowball, I mean just look history.

It only "snowballed" when it got help from outside. Communist regimes dont grow on their own.

>>617253

Of Hitler was more pragmatic and less of a German ultra nationalist sperg I feel he could have played the situation off quite well. Use Poland as a buffer state then support internal division of the USSR and it’s likely Germany could have come to dominate Central Europe.

>>617266

>Use Poland as a buffer state

That's a bit difficult when the supposed buffer state is a military dictatorship that hates your guts, and is committing genocide on your people.

You're a fucking retard and you know nothing of history, please do yourself and everyone else a favor by keeping your inbred retard mouth shut.

>>617268

>Poland

>military dictatorship committing to genocide "your people"

What do you mean by this?

>>617268

>and is committing genocide on your people.

>this is what g*rmanoids really believe

>>617271

I'm sure it's not even the germans but some fuck retards who literally think if Hitler didn't invade Poland and the USSR, they are going to be genocide to the last man.

>>617269

The fact that the polacks were ethnically cleansing the German population in their country.

>>617271

<W-we din du nuffin!

<Doze bodies aint real massah! I sweaz!

Behold the eternal polcuck, too much of a bitch to stand up for the actions of his people, too much of a bitch to accept the fact that his people are responsible for their own suffering.

>>617274

Proof?

This is funny as shit because the "germans" literally can't prove it, you are using the jews tactics.

>>617274

<Doze bodies aint real massah! I sweaz!

You mean bodies of thousands of polish civilians that g*rmanoids massacred when they invaded poland?

>>617276

>Proof?

https://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/wrsynopsis.html

Kek, you're a fucking retard. READ A BOOK YOU FUCKING RICE NIGGER.

>>617282

>This is literally what the polcuck pretends to believe

Nigger, I know you're a useless drunkard, but please stop pretending to be ignorant, your people is a people of rapist nigger tier murderers, and you massacred women and children to please your animalistic subhuman instincts, no one believes you, everyone knows what filthy subhuman animals your people are, the worst part of the German invasion of poland is that they didn't exterminate your worthless nigger tier people. Go drink your vodka and cry yourself to sleep now you fucking faggot.

>>617286

They spammed that link in every thread, but there's no proof substancing that link.

The source is based on fucking german report for christ sake.

It's pretty much germans saying poles are killing germans so germans HAFTA invade Poland.

>>617287

>They spammed that link in every thread, but there's no proof substancing that link.

Except for all the fucking foot notes, are you too retarded to read chink?

>The source is based on fucking german report for christ sake.

>Anything that isn't from the New York Times is unreliable GOY, only the information sources that I previously use myself are acceptable information sources GOY!

Yeah, your argument is literally "B-BUT THAT INFORMATION ISN'T FROM MY SIDE SO IT'S WRONG!!!!" please, provide any fucking evidence that the article is incorrect, you can't do it, because it is in fact correct.

>It's pretty much germans saying poles are killing germans so germans HAFTA invade Poland.

And that's literally what happened, that a German says it makes it no less true, what do you think the polacks and British news are going to be honest about it? Are you fucking retarded? You can't argue against the source so you sperge out. pollacks murdered German civilians, and that's why Hitler invaded, that's factually correct.

>>617286

>Nigger, I know you're a useless drunkard, but please stop pretending to be ignorant, your people is a people of rapist nigger tier murderers, and you massacred women and children to please your animalistic subhuman instincts, no one believes you, everyone knows what filthy subhuman animals your people are, the worst part of the German invasion of poland is that they didn't exterminate your worthless nigger tier people. Go drink your vodka and cry yourself to sleep now you fucking faggot.

Lol

Im glad Mutti invited merkelmen into germany, maybe they will breed out impotent g*rmanoid race finally once and for all

>>617292

>Except for all the fucking foot notes, are you too retarded to read chink?

The footnotes are the exact pre-war german sources which are literally untrustable with no cross references or even pictures.

>Yeah, your argument is literally "B-BUT THAT INFORMATION ISN'T FROM MY SIDE SO IT'S WRONG!!!!" please, provide any fucking evidence that the article is incorrect, you can't do it, because it is in fact correct.

So your argument is B-BUT THAT INFORMATION IS FROM MY SIDE, SO IT'S RIGHT? Is that it? In fact, provide evidences of any germans being killed by poles first then.

>And that's literally what happened, that a German says it makes it no less true, what do you think the polacks and British news are going to be honest about it?

What, and you expect the germans to be honest about it?

So again, because it's german sources, you HAFTA trust it? Despite no evidences being presented?

>Are you fucking retarded? You can't argue against the source so you sperge out. pollacks murdered German civilians, and that's why Hitler invaded, that's factually correct.

Again, no evidences were ever presented.

>>617294

It's not a german.

>>617296

Good, after all who would want to be a g*rmanoid

>>617297

This brother war is some hilarious shit.

Now the germans are literally making shit up to justify their Fuhrer's behaviours, which are frankly pathetic and make me lose a lot of faith in the "nazis".

>>617295

https://admin.fee.org/files/doclib/books1203.pdf

"A huge military buildup of

Soviet forces along the border with Germany

(in what had been Poland) was set in

motion. But the controversy has been about

whether this buildup was for defensive or

offensive purposes.

The documents show that no plan or

preparations were organized for the construc-

tion of defense positions. The deployment

and order of battle were virtually all consis-

tent with an offensive strategy, not the repulse

of an anticipated attack. The configuration of

these forces explains why the Germans faced

no serious defense positions when they

invaded, and why they were able to initially

capture so many Soviet soldiers and advance

so rapidly into Soviet territory—in the first six

months of the German invasion seven million

Red Army soldiers were either captured or

killed, and 500,000 square miles of Soviet ter-

ritory were occupied.

Furthermore, there has come to light the

full text of a Soviet General Staff document

from May 15, 1941, that explicitly presents

the plan to “Preempt the enemy by deploy-

ing against and attacking the German Army

at the very moment when he has reached the

deployment stage but is still not able to orga-

nize its forces into a front or coordinate all

his forces.”

Was this just a plan prepared by the Soviet

military, or was this reflective of Stalin’s

intentions? Ten days earlier, on May 5, Stalin

spoke at a reception for recent graduates of

Red Army officer schools, and declared that

the time for mere defense was over now that

the Soviet military had been reconstructed

and was ready for battle. “Now is the time to

go from defense to offense.”

It is fairly clear, now, that Stalin, having

helped to start the Second World War

through his pact with Hitler, was readying

to attack Germany and begin the process of

sovietizing the European continent. Hitler,

guided by his own aggressive ambitions,

merely beat him to the punch by striking

first."

I know you're a retard, but I do have to make it clear, that there really is no actual dispute among historians who study the subject as to Stalin's intentions, the only difference here is that pop culture and teachers are not willing to change their incorrect view, and possibly paint the picture that Hitler was either going to strike first, or have to be invaded by the Soviets, you're a fucking retard, and you know nothing of the subject, you are not willing to change your views in the face of all fucking evidence in the world

>>617294

Kek, this is the face of the eternal polcuck, don't worry you inbred gopnik, the Germanic peoples aren't going to go anywhere, we'll shake this current malaise off us, and then Germany will be coming to take the land you stole back, and they won't be happy with just taking what you stole, they'll come for all of it, and there won't be any Britain or America to save you this time.

>>617301

Actually, there is a dispute among historian about it, and you are literally quoting ONE historitan take on it, based on evidences that he has no sources on.

>Furthermore, there has come to light the

full text of a Soviet General Staff document

from May 15, 1941, that explicitly presents

the plan to “Preempt the enemy by deploy-

ing against and attacking the German Army

at the very moment when he has reached the

deployment stage but is still not able to orga-

nize its forces into a front or coordinate all

his forces.”

Was this just a plan prepared by the Soviet

military, or was this reflective of Stalin’s

intentions? Ten days earlier, on May 5, Stalin

spoke at a reception for recent graduates of

Red Army officer schools, and declared that

the time for mere defense was over now that

the Soviet military had been reconstructed

and was ready for battle. “Now is the time to

go from defense to offense.”

Where are this document?

>the only difference here is that pop culture and teachers are not willing to change their incorrect view

The only difference here is you trying to justify Hitler's every whims instead of admitting that he made TWO mistakes that cost him the war.

>you are not willing to change your views in the face of all fucking evidence in the world

I would, when evidences are provided.

>>617304

I hope they don't mean Suvorov's Icebreaker, which is debunked already.

>>617304

>Actually, there is a dispute among historian about it, and you are literally quoting ONE historitan take on it

Read the link, he gives the names of many more, and then there is the fact that they actually have the documents showing the planned Soviet attack in to Germany, direct quotes from Stalin and various generals etc, there is no actual dispute as to Stalin's intentions, the only matter which is disputed is when he planned on attacking.

>Where are this document?

Where is the evidence that Stalin was arranging the military in defensive positions, because there exists no fucking dispute as to their presence on the front. PROVE TO ME THAT THEY WERE IN DEFENSIVE POSITIONS RETARD.

>The only difference here is you trying to justify Hitler's every whims instead of admitting that he made TWO mistakes that cost him the war.

They weren't Hitler's whims, the invasion of the Soviet Union was actually supported by the general staff, retards like you don't understand that in about 90% of cases Hitler simply approved of the plans his Field Marshals provided him with, Hitler didn't involve himself in the vast majority of military decisions, your understanding of the second world war comes from the fucking history channel, you're a fucking joke.

>I would, when evidences are provided.

They have been, many times, and you should try actually studying the subject before you have any strong opinions about it, something you obviously have not done.

>>617274

>The fact that the polacks were ethnically cleansing the German population in their country.

Something germans/prussians weren't doing for 123 years prior to that, but it's okay because poland was politically weak enough to partition and as a result didn't exist on maps (outside of Ottoman Empire and Netherlands, IIRC) so the ethnic poles also vanished, only to be resurrected by perfidious albion to be used as pawns.

>>617286

>the worst part of the German invasion of poland is that they didn't exterminate your worthless nigger tier people.

>Put jews in ghettos

>don't actually exterminate them

Bravo

<Poles are worse than jews, because jews were parasitizing them

ok.

>>617297

>posts an eceleb with a blonde-blue eyed mulatto

>>>/cow/

>>>/reddit/

protip, next time post the pic of a baste quadriplegic negro on independence day march.

>>617302

Using broomhandles, or diverse Bundeswehr?

Afterall, being too patriotic was banned from the army.

You won't do jackshit because jews having learned their lesson from Weimar times will ensure you can always afford heroin and child prostitutes on top of your soy fodder

>>617307

>Read the link, he gives the names of many more, and then there is the fact that they actually have the documents showing the planned Soviet attack in to Germany, direct quotes from Stalin and various generals etc

Again, where is the document of that?

>Where is the evidence that Stalin was arranging the military in defensive positions, because there exists no fucking dispute as to their presence on the front.

I ask you a question, now you literally me to prove it. But fine:

>Further, Glantz argues, Suvorov's thesis is strongly contradicted both by ex-Soviet and German archival material, and the facts do not support the argument that the Red Army was prepared to invade Germany.[2] On the contrary, the appalling lack of readiness, poor training level, and abysmal state of deployments show that the Red Army was unprepared for static defense, much less large-scale offensive operations. Glantz's conclusion is that "Stalin may well have been an unscrupulous tyrant, but he was not a lunatic."

For his part, however, Suvorov not only admits his selectiveness but justifies his methods, recalling his work in the intelligence community:

"If a hundred secret agents are reporting one way, and one sounds out of place and makes no sense, deal with him. No one will trust him or you, they will laugh at you, and they will not believe you. But this is how great discoveries are made".[3]

Commenting on the existing plans for a Soviet preemptive strike, Robin Edmonds argues that "the Red Army planning staff would not have been doing its job if it had not devoted some time between 1939 and 1941 to the possibility, at some future date, of a pre-emptive strike against Wehrmacht".[4] David Brandenberger notes that recently published pre-1941 German analysis of Soviet military readiness also does not support the major Icebreaker's thesis demonstrating that Soviet preparations were assessed to be "defensive" by German intelligence."[5]

>Although Suvorov claims that an attack date of July 6, 1941 had been selected, this is contradicted by the evidence as presented by Glantz and others. There were no stockpiles of fuel, ammunition, and other stores held in forward areas as would have been needed if an invasion was about to be mounted. Major ground units were dispersed into small garrisons rather than being concentrated at railheads, as they would have been had they been preparing an invasion. Units were not co-located with their own transportation assets, leaving, for example, major artillery units immobile. Over 50% of all Soviet tanks required major maintenance on June 22, 1941. If an invasion were being planned, these maintenance tasks would have been completed. Most Soviet armor units were in the process of re-organizing into new Tank Corps; the German invasion caught these units in the midst of this reorganization. Such a large-scale reorganization is inconsistent with an impending invasion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker_(Suvorov)

>They weren't Hitler's whims, the invasion of the Soviet Union was actually supported by the general staff,

That means the general staff is retarded and Hitler is still retarded for approving it.

>They have been, many times, and you should try actually studying the subject before you have any strong opinions about it, something you obviously have not done.

There have been many times, many times I argued this on /pol/, in fact, it's you guys who should study this further without embarassing yourself if you ever be called to dispute this in real life.

>>617310

>Again, where is the document of that?

It's a review of the book, so look in the fucking book, are you retarded?

>the facts do not support the argument that the Red Army was prepared to invade Germany.[2] On the contrary, the appalling lack of readiness, poor training level, and abysmal state of deployments show that the Red Army was unprepared for static defense, much less large-scale offensive operations.

And yet you have the invasion of Finland, the funny thing about this quote you give is that it doesn't argue against the point I made, it simply clarifies that at the point which Germany invaded the Soviets had not yet built up sufficient stockpiles, and they also admit that the Soviet forces were not arrayed in a defensive manner, simply the Soviets were building up their military forces for invasion and they were simply not yet ready to do so, and due to the dismal state of the Soviet military leadership due to Stalin's purges the actual ability for the high leadership to attain reliable information as to the actual combat readiness of the military forces would most likely have been severely hampered. Your own quote actually agrees with my assessment, the Soviets were arraying military forces on the German boarder and they were not arrayed in a defensive pattern, the fact that logistics were in a bad state due to the general lack of military organization in the Soviet military does not argue against the already admitted military build up.

Are you retarded my chinky dinky friend? Can you even fucking read? Are you so fucking stupid you literally site a source that actually states that everything I said was true, and it only argues as to when the planned Soviet invasion was supposed to happen, and that the Germans simply preemptively invaded to defend themselves. I find this to be quite hilarious.

>demonstrating that Soviet preparations were assessed to be "defensive" by German intelligence

Kek, even your own previous quote argues against that, they themselves admit that the Soviet forces were not arrayed in a defensive way, and the only argument against a Soviet invasion is that they had not yet built up sufficient stockpiles of supplies.

>Although Suvorov claims that an attack date of July 6, 1941 had been selected (etc)

I never stated that I believed that the date of "July 6, 1941", I have in fact stated the planned date is in dispute, some theorizing that they were planning on invading in the spring of 1942, a date which I myself find to be most likely.

>That means the general staff is retarded and Hitler is still retarded for approving it.

Kek, they acted in the entirely correctly way from the information they had available to them, retards like you think that Hitler and the General staff had the same information available that you do now with hindsight, you're a childish retard and have a laughable understanding of history, especially WW2 and the events that lead up to it.

>it's you guys who should study this further without embarassing yourself if you ever be called to dispute this in real life.

Except for the fact that you can't actually argue against anything that I said, instead you argue against a strawman, change the goalposts, or simply say that you don't like the evidence that I have provided without actually being able to show how it is unreliable or debunk it?

>>617314

If USSR failed to conquer finland how could have they conquer germany huh?

Really made me think

>>617325

Are you retarded?

>That flag

Of course you are.

The fact that they had improper logistics and leadership is not evidence of a lack of intention, as can be seen by earlier Soviet military actions.

When was the earliest the Soviets could've feasibly attacked the European Axis powers in the event of Barbarossa nod habbeding?

>>615865

It's a shame that a good post was ignored because it didn't fit any of the shit flingers worldview on the war.

I'd also argue that in terms of winning the war against Russia, Japan should have been a lot more strict on what went through, especially in terms of food and raw materials. At the same time, it's hard to fault them for not being a lot more vigilant on the blockade against American ships transporting the goods during the lend-lease due to resource shortages on their side. It may not have been enough to strangle Russia, but it would put heavy pressure on the Soviets during a crucial point, which might have lead to a strategic mistake or desperate action.

>>617335

With their railway system and their industrial power? I'd say 1-2 years, and that's waiting on full scale production of their newer tanks and planes. It was one of the reasons for Germany's early victories: Russia's mechanized forces still not being on relatively even footing with Germany, as the factories weren't able to get the newest vehicles to the front, which would also mean the ammo/fuel to go with it, the training to ensure the vehicles would be used properly (remember, Germany also had recent combat experience under it's belt, both from the Spanish Civil War and the French Campaign), along with trying to ease out any big issues from the vehicles themselves.

That's not including moving the ground forces, as well, mind you, which is where the actual war is won. But the extra time could have helped Germany too or hindered it. This next bit is just a set of possibilities, mind you. For instance, they might have moved the majority of their forces to Africa and other colonial areas to keep England pressured, or planned a possibly successful land invasion (which would require a heavy amount of troops, planes, and ships in the area, against the premier naval power for the last 2-300 or so years). Now mind you, this might also have shifted Germany into either opting for increasing bomber interceptors or strategic bombers as well, to handle the ships and factories and other targets. Despite these new directions the war could take though, all of this would mean if Russia decides to suddenly knock on your doorstep, you're screwed. But thats just a single set of possibilities amidst billions that could swing the war one way or the other. As long as Japan doesn't do some dumb shit during that time, America might still keep its isolationism until the war's conclusion

>>617370

>As long as Japan doesn't do some dumb shit during that time, America might still keep its isolationism until the war's conclusion.

The war against Germany and Japan was already decided by Jewish money lenders in the 30s. Pearl Harbor was just a convenient exucse.

>>617325

American lend-lease.

>>617335

Feasibly as in how soon without getting their shit rammed in? >>617370 more or less has the right of it. Mid/late 42 or 43 will/could stiffen up their materiel line enough to make sucker-punching them somewhat less feasible and a protracted war potentially far more bloody, at least if you have any faith in the idea of the officership regaining competency through any means other than spending some hundreds of swimming pools' worth in blood figuring out that they're retarded communist shits & reinstating meritocracy after the Winter War 2: Preussen Boogaloo.

Feasibly as in how soon can they make the attempt? Around the same time Operation Barbarossa went off, going by the Suvorov Hypothesis. Lovely bit of work by an ex-GRU officer by the name of Viktor Suvorov, as 'Nam and friends kvetched about up above. I'll parrot the mystery flag's line 'incompetence does not rule out intent' in advance, and just quote the wiki article that phrases things more succinctly than I could.

>According to Suvorov, Stalin planned to use Nazi Germany as a proxy (the “Icebreaker”) against the West. For this reason, Stalin provided significant material and political support to Adolf Hitler, while at the same time preparing the Red Army to “liberate” the whole of Europe from Nazi occupation. Suvorov argued that Hitler had lost World War II from the very moment he attacked Poland: not only was he going to war with the powerful Allies, but it was only a matter of time before the Soviet Union would seize the opportune moment to attack him from the rear. This left Hitler with no choice but to direct a preemptive strike at the Soviet Union, while Stalin's forces were redeploying from a defensive to an offensive posture in June 1941, providing Hitler with an important initial tactical advantage.

>However, this was strategically hopeless because the Nazis then had to fight on two fronts, a mistake Hitler himself had identified as Germany's undoing in the previous war. At the end of the war, Stalin was able to achieve only some of his initial objectives by establishing Communist regimes in Eastern Europe and North Korea. According to Suvorov, this made Stalin the primary winner of World War II, even though Stalin was not satisfied by the outcome, as he intended to bring Soviet domination to the whole continent of Europe.

>The works by Suvorov remain a matter of debate among historians. While most agree that Stalin made extensive preparations for an upcoming war and exploited the military conflict in Europe to his advantage, the assertions that Stalin planned to attack Nazi Germany in the summer of 1941, and that Operation Barbarossa was a preemptive strike by Hitler, are disputed.

The evidence of Suvorov's original work is infamously and irritatingly circumstantial, with mistakes made here and there, but it's rather convincing. Lots of support both for and against. What are some of his justifications, in (relative) brief?

You don't poise your entire army at the border with clear avenues of advance as a defensive strategy. You don't break barriers and clear out minefields. You don't, as Stalin, repeatedly talk about and clearly plan for being 'the last to enter the field' of a general European war to clean up the exhausted combatants. You don't laugh off reports from Japanese-embedded intelligence sources that Barbarossa is right about to happen just because you're haughty, drunk, or think Hitler wouldn't dare gamble that hard, but also because you're sure you'll hit him first. You don't prepare the largest airborne army in history, meme-tier Christie suspension tanks like the BT-7 that are bad on rough terrain even with tracks and useless on anything but the best roads when in (extremely fast) armored car exploitation mode, airdropped tanks (not self-gliding like the A-40, that's a '42 development) and ridiculous multi-turret department store assault tanks for a defensive war.

You don't make no plans for a major defense-in-depth war in the first place or any defensive war while coming up with lots of very offensive and forward deployment plans as Soviet archives tellingly reveal. Stalin wanted to attack, the question is when, the answer is 'as soon as he thinks he can get away with it,' and shrewd as he could be, he is not psychic, does not like hearing bad news, and is perfectly capable of thinking he can pull off a reverse-Barbarossa at what he thinks is the most advantageous moment instead of waiting through the modernization programs, which he might strive to accelerate as his offensives go foward. The critics and mid-positioners are allowing hindsight of army reorganization and maintenance screw-ups at the border to color their judgement, blinding them to the idea that Stalin is perfectly capable of aggressing at hindsight-incompetent junctures, see Finland.

>>617410

Now, of course, the runaway sprint of Soviet tank divisions, the mass drop of tens of thousands and more Soviet paratroopers into who knows where, and the advance of millions of men would've been quite a shock. But considering how the Soviet army was still an unprofessional rabbling shamble in 1941, and even if one delays to '42 when a lot of modernization like SVT rifles (with quality problems from OTL that might get worse rather than better with fuller production scale, because while usually mass production implies kinks getting worked out, the demand for MORE AUTO RIFLES NOW RIGHT NOW could cause a quality nosedive compared to the mere wonky stock fittings of OTL) and T-34M tanks gets done, you still have a purge-obliterated officership and the new problem of new tooling and weapons in serious mass production at the same time as you'll still likely have to utilize the old tooling and models to supplement.

As a detailed example, this might end up making the arguments between groups like the 'modern tank' vs 'mass tank' cliques even more violent and resources even worse distributed compared to OTL where projects like the T-34M, KV-3-5 & various souped models like the KV-85, and the T-43 were able to be swiftly thrown out in favor of 'good enough' attrition solutions, which they wouldn't have been without both the shock of Barbarossa and the anemic tonnage of the German tank park. These vehicles would have been even more fierce on paper than those from OTL, but you can imagine what their reliability would've been like. The 'modern T-34' programs would've probably come through as genuine improvements qualitatively, with some trouble created by resource distribution between old and new lines and the speed of closing & opening respectively, but one can only imagine what a fuck-up the Tiger killers like the KV-3 would've been. If at relative leisure the 30 ton T-34 could eat its own gearbox through sheer ineptitude of design at very similar rates to the troubled Panther with a too-weak straight toothed transmission on a 45 ton tank bloated from a 35-40 ton tank and rushed to production, what will happen if the Soviets try to get a 70-ton tank like the KV-3 out in late '41 or early '42? It'd be almost definitely be inherently worse even without logistical circumstance than the Tiger II at its absolute worst with additional German logistical-circumstantial elements, a complete boondoggle.

Really, who knows what would've happened. Maybe the Soviets would overrun the Axis and burn continental Europe, from Poland to Spain, Suomi to Sicily; little further description necessary there. Or maybe their grand offensive would be a catastrophe, with Barbarossa-style encirclements made even worse by the depth of their advance and the poise of the Axis counter-attacks following a fighting retreat. The early war Soviet tank park was absurdly breakdown prone as said and barely got better as the war went on; the T-34s and KV-1s of '41 had this awful 'evaporation on contact' habit, or even before contact, because the drive trains would fall to pieces. The sheer number that accomplished nothing due to this is a contributor to the 'there weren't enough T-34s early on!' myth, there were plenty, but they puttered to death on the advance. Thus, the oh-so-triumphant breakthroughs toward cities and across hill & dale could be followed by total stalls, with the tanks stranded in hostile territory as Soviet follow-on troops- mechanized or foot- fail to quite follow through. The huge assault tanks, with no or relatively poor cupolas, will ditch themselves with astonishing regularity when they don't get mobility killed or gutted by light anti-tank troops acting in concert with German rifle-MG teams.

Field armies of Soviet paratroopers would be scattered everywhere, from industrial plants to urban centers to agrarian hubs, and would accomplish some great sabotage and rear attacks. And, being less then stellarly trained or armed (critics of Suvorov themselves highlight this) they'd also take plenty of losses to accomplish a great deal of raping, looting, and butchering, in full view of the Axis press and with no room for the Allies to spin it if they don't want to risk a huge propaganda gaff. Volksturm-like backline militia units and nu-Freikorps would form by state and independent action years in advance to slaughter these isolated units. The will for total war would flare far in advance of OTL's loss of Stalingrad, and with it the possibility for killing the commercial economy in favor of a streamlined and galvanized military-industrial complex. Maybe the wholes of Germany, Poland and Romania, and perhaps further on to Hungary and the Czechs, would in fact become the Soviets' own Stalingrad and devour them whole, with frontline mutiny, rollback and homefront counter-revolution following. And maybe it'd be anywhere in the middle between these extremes. Interesting to think about either way.

>>617314

>It's a review of the book, so look in the fucking book, are you retarded?

Again, which is your burden of proof, or am I supposed to get the evidence for you too?

>And yet you have the invasion of Finland, the funny thing about this quote you give is that it doesn't argue against the point I made, it simply clarifies that at the point which Germany invaded the Soviets had not yet built up sufficient stockpiles

They did prepare for the invasion of Finland though, so again, you are making shit up.

>and they also admit that the Soviet forces were not arrayed in a defensive manner, simply the Soviets were building up their military forces for invasion

Are you illiterate?

>>>show that the Red Army was unprepared for static defense, much less large-scale offensive operations.

Jesus christ, are you illiterate?

>Kek, even your own previous quote argues against that, they themselves admit that the Soviet forces were not arrayed in a defensive way,

Actually, it shows that even the German intelligence agrees that it was arranged in a defensive manner.

>I never stated that I believed that the date of "July 6, 1941", I have in fact stated the planned date is in dispute, some theorizing that they were planning on invading in the spring of 1942, a date which I myself find to be most likely.

So what's the date? Because that's your precious Suvorov's planned date.

>Kek, they acted in the entirely correctly way from the information they had available to them

Yeah, they didn't. They opened a two front war and doomed themselves, meanwhile you keep praising them like a puppet.

>Except for the fact that you can't actually argue against anything that I said,

Actually I did and I directly counter your assessment. It's you who can't even read.

>>617410

It's funny now that the americans now entirely rely on Suvorov's work, which is already debunked.

>The evidence of Suvorov's original work is infamously and irritatingly circumstantial, with mistakes made here and there, but it's rather convincing. Lots of support both for and against. What are some of his justifications, in (relative) brief?

>You don't poise your entire army at the border with clear avenues of advance as a defensive strategy.

But Stalin didn't pose their whole army in the border. In fact, the reason why they didn't is why they were able to defend Moscow.

>blinding them to the idea that Stalin is perfectly capable of aggressing at hindsight-incompetent junctures, see Finland.

The invasion of Finland WAS prepared, the Soviet still failed while they were prepared, it's not that they didn't prepare.

I find your assessment to be dishonest.

>>617411

Best scenario would probably be a Korea-tier armistice between Britain and Germany with no lend lease over the Atlantic ever happening and the Soviet Union crashing with no survivors as a result.

>>617414

'Nam man, don't tell me about 'dishonesty' if four lines of janky logic is all you have to deploy against an effortpost.

>It's funny now that the americans now entirely rely on Suvorov's work, which is already debunked.

How, when? As mysteryanon already stated, the only part that's been 'debunked'- which is a fine word for 'heavily disputed'- is the notion that the Soviet great offensive was due in a similar timeframe to Barbarossa. Disputed, not debunked.

>But Stalin didn't pose their whole army in the border. In fact, the reason why they didn't is why they were able to defend Moscow.

Oh, pardon me, they didn't post the literal whole of their army at the border. Just 23 odd field armies on June 22nd, with the best and most modern tanks then available, with forward-positioned bases and airfields stocked to the gills that would be and indeed were supremely vulnerable in the event of an enemy offensive and only sane in placement with the consideration that the front line would press forward and provide further breathing room in the event of war. There were 79 odd armies/headquarters groups over the course of the entire war, with plenty formed midwar; without exhaustively picking over how many were in existence up to June 22nd, for quickness of postings' sake let's say I'll guess it's plausibly a third or so of their concentrated strength right at the forefront and not concentrated merely on the western frontier, but towards Germany in particular. Another third or more in reserve in European Russia, whatever's left in the Far East. Generally but not exactly correct statements. Please nitpick at the fringe of these statements instead of addressing the core, I'll be just giddy about it.

>The invasion of Finland WAS prepared, the Soviet still failed while they were prepared, it's not that they didn't prepare.

'Prepared' in the sense of 'preparations were made.' Preparations can fail. Preparations can be incomplete. Preparations can be rushed. Preparations can be swept aside or their real state of advancement swept under the rug. The Soviets 'prepared' for Finland by throwing together offensive battleplans, hyping up their impending victory, and throwing scads of conscripts forward along with ill-thought cavalry & assault tanks into the meatgrinder while engaging in tactical bombing campaigns. Their incompetent communized, loyalty-prioritized officership bungled it all in combination with these factors.

The notion that that degree of 'preparation' is too much different from the potential preparation for a '41 reverse-Barbarossa is of course total fucking hogwash. By the by, the entire casus belli for the Winter War is as follows, per kikepedia.

>In April 1938, NKVD agent Boris Yartsev contacted the Finnish Foreign Minister Rudolf Holsti and Prime Minister Aimo Cajander, stating that the Soviet Union did not trust Germany and that war was considered possible between the two countries. The Red Army would not wait passively behind the border but would rather "advance to meet the enemy". Finnish representatives assured Yartsev that Finland was committed to a policy of neutrality and that the country would resist any armed incursion. Yartsev suggested that Finland cede or lease some islands in the Gulf of Finland along the seaward approaches to Leningrad; Finland refused.

>>617454

Then, in 26th November 1939 after lots of back-and-forth ('gib leningrad isles, we fug germany gud suka blyat') the Soviet village of Mainila is shelled by NKVD artillery fire in one of the most absurd, bald-faced false flag attacks in history. They rattled their sabers, blocked all bilateral investigation of the incident for obvious reasons, and trundled full bore into open war with Finland with appalling haste. Again per Wiki,

>Before the war, Soviet leadership expected total victory within a few weeks. The Red Army had just completed the invasion of Eastern Poland at a cost of fewer than 4,000 casualties after Germany attacked Poland from the west. Stalin's expectations of a quick Soviet triumph were backed up by politician Andrei Zhdanov and military strategist Kliment Voroshilov, but other generals were more reserved. The Chief of Staff of the Red Army Boris Shaposhnikov advocated a fuller build-up, extensive fire support and logistical preparations, and a rational order of battle, and the deployment of the army's best units. Zhdanov's military commander Kirill Meretskov reported that "The terrain of coming operations is split by lakes, rivers, swamps, and is almost entirely covered by forests […] The proper use of our forces will be difficult." These doubts were not reflected in his troop deployments. Meretskov announced publicly that the Finnish campaign would take two weeks at the most. Soviet soldiers had even been warned not to cross the border into Sweden by mistake.

>Stalin's purges in the 1930s had devastated the officer corps of the Red Army; those purged included three of its five marshals, 220 of its 264 division or higher-level commanders, and 36,761 officers of all ranks. Fewer than half of all the officers remained. They were commonly replaced by soldiers who were less competent but more loyal to their superiors. Unit commanders were overseen by political commissars, whose approval was needed to ratify military decisions and who evaluated those decisions based on their political merits. The dual system further complicated Soviet chain of command and annulled the independence of commanding officers.

>After the Soviet success in the battles of Khalkhin Gol against Japan on the USSR's eastern border, Soviet high command had divided into two factions. One side was represented by Spanish Civil War veterans General Pavel Rychagov from the Soviet Air Force, tank expert General Dmitry Pavlov, and Stalin's favourite general, Marshal Grigory Kulik, chief of artillery. The other was led by Khalkhin Gol veterans General Georgy Zhukov of the Red Army and General Grigory Kravchenko of the Soviet Air Force. Under this divided command structure, the lessons of the Soviet Union's "first real war on a massive scale using tanks, artillery, and aircraft" at Khalkin Gol went unheeded. As a result, Russian BT tanks were less successful during the Winter War, and it took the Soviet Union three months and over a million men to accomplish what Zhukov did at Khalkhin Gol in ten days.

That's your comparative 'preparation' to a theoretic attempt by Stalin and whoever else to force through a summer offensive contiguous with Barbarossa at earliest and probably Spring 1942 at latest, in spite of massive reorganizational difficulties, lacking supply, maintenance back-up on AFVs, and a completely hamstringed army. The exact same brand of braggard incompetence & Stalin-pleasing wishful thinking that is proposed as necessary for a June-ish Soviet offensive was displayed with flying colors in Finland, and seeing as the Soviets learned none of their lessons (which could've perhaps been accomplished as early as Khalkin!) until they were on the brink at the furthest German advances and still hadn't quite learned them all by then, absolutely nothing stands in the way of Suvorov's original assertions beside their incompletion, the odd mistakes he'd made, and Stalin's own unknown caution to launching the invasion just yet, of which we can only say with certainty, 'Maybe not before June 22nd, but soon."

Again, don't sling a line like 'dishonesty,' when you weasel around opposing logic with jelly-like statements that avoid the main points. The Soviets were poised for anything but defense. Soviet operational & deployment plans from before the war revolved entirely around a mad rush West and continued to revolve around this idea up until Barbarossa. Suvorov is essentially correct, but not exactly correct, in the same fashion as, say, Stanley Kubrick once said that "Hitler was right about almost everything."

>>617456

Wew, this bloated to a three-parter. Last one.

>>617430

I'm personally of the opinion that the Anglo-American angle simply can't be avoided except maybe if Churchill dies in that car accident. But that doesn't mean the Axis, especially if better run and coordinated, can't tangle with them and secure their positions in Eurasia. Britain, invincible unless the Germans and Italians get after certain technologies that preserve their ships on the sea while bleeding the British, will hold out until all her blows are blunted, and unless galvanizing actions like ineffectual tactical-scale city bombing as Hitlers' response to early deliberate terror bombing by Britain are avoided, and until the Empire is so strained in Asia and the Med that pro-Axis factions in the army, the nobility and in soon-to-be-freed interned fascists ala Mosley strive for revolution against a now deeply unpopular war party government, leading to split fronts and surrendering pockets, and perhaps the split of the armed forces themselves between those willing to lay down arms (or change their targets) to save most the Empire and those willing to go into exile and fight from the Commonwealths because they're that stubborn about Jerry-Jap-Wop rotters. If you get there in the vicinity of '43, of course, Britain ceases to be a base for large-scale Anglo-American endeavors to invade France or scale up bombing Germany, or else will become a cauldron of death for those forces and that materiel if a revolution/mutiny comes later than that.

America, under the fervently pro-war, social democratic and duplicitous Roosevelt, will inevitably get dragged into the war on some hokey casus belli or another even without an attack on her soil or that of a territory, but likewise will be likely doing so under far less popular circumstances than OTL if it appears to be a lost or unjust cause. After all, why are we raving about 'saving democracy' while trying to save a dying empire that the American officership was quite keen on dismantling and a ramshackle Chinese state rotted through by warlordism? Why are we saving godless communism, the seemingly worse depredation compared to fascism? If America stumbles, Vietnam style anti-war demonstration from a right rather than leftwing angle, centering largely around Lindbergh's America First & company, will trip the will to continue total war against a secured Axis across several continents. After that, with lots of Soviet and Jewish expatriates arriving and the total shift in capital of the financial government from the City of London to Wall Street at the same time as conventional politics are discredited, Roosevelt's clique desperately holds onto undemocratic power for dear life as long as they can, and near-fascists and Nazis roar aloud, politics could get weird in America. Kennedy establishing open rapport with Nazi Germany and getting killed by a communist Jew and some CIA niggers per OTL but this fact being widely revealed instead of effectively suppressed, Frankfurt School orgycommie darkie revolution going hot in the '60s weird.

In short; snowballing military success is the name of the game for the Axis, the key to the great door. The mold of that key to success is in alternative military and procurement choices, and in plausible modifications of the vices & virtues of the decision making men themselves, and the killing or sparing of them. Don't think small, don't think 'local victory in dismantling the Soviets, white peace with a still parliamentary Britain, Japan still gets nuked, Italy and Spain exist as milquetoast parafascist tumors that never solve their problems.' Think 'the entirety of Eurasia behind iron curtain and blanketed with fascist regimes centered around Germany, Italy and Japan, as well as a somewhat rump'd fascist Great Britain coordinating with much of her often more independent empire (beside Canada) and suffering still less trouble than rush-decolonialized OTL Britain, the spirit of high science and Faustian will to explore & conquer never die with von Braun at the head of full scale space colonialism, all Rothschild-Jewish perfidy physically expelled to a containment colony in Madagascar or escaping by ratline to stew in rage in North America until the apocalyptic continuation war, warlordist savagery in Africa totally blunted, open communism a despised fringe ideology which unlike fascism today will never regain the slightest measure of social or political credit nor benefit of the doubt.' Imagine.

>>617268

MUH OPPRESSED GERMANS!!!!! They weren’t.

What was the plausibility of The Axis being able to disintegrate the USSR from the inside out by supporting rebellions? Would a white army coup in Russia or a successful Ukrainian uprising have been reasonable? They had lots of exiles and former government officials kicking around then.

>>617454

Your "effortpost" is full of janky logics and I will dismantle it:

The Suvorov's theory is debunked, because:

+ the army Stalin poised at the border was not geared for offense, IT was not geared for anything at all but just a show of force, as response to the own build-up of German force.

+ Your army of assault guns, paratroopers, tanks have no not enough AMMUNITION or FUEL to even advance.

+ Your thesis that they will attack on 42 is unfounded, they are still in the Winter war and whole unprepared for ANOTHER front.

+ Your matter of preparation for the Winter war is bogus too, the Russian did actually prepare ammunition and fuel for the Winter war, they were just bad at doing the actual job i.e. tactics.

>The exact same brand of braggard incompetence & Stalin-pleasing wishful thinking that is proposed as necessary for a June-ish Soviet offensive was displayed with flying colors in Finland, and seeing as the Soviets learned none of their lessons (which could've perhaps been accomplished as early as Khalkin!) until they were on the brink at the furthest German advances and still hadn't quite learned them all by then, absolutely nothing stands in the way of Suvorov's original assertions beside their incompletion, the odd mistakes he'd made, and Stalin's own unknown caution to launching the invasion just yet, of which we can only say with certainty, 'Maybe not before June 22nd, but soon."

Yes, the smart germans, who supposedly see how badly the ruskies did in the invasion of Finland, instead IMMEDIATELY attack Russia and got into a strangehold where they cannot escape from and earn international hatred.

>Again, don't sling a line like 'dishonesty,' when you weasel around opposing logic with jelly-like statements that avoid the main points. The Soviets were poised for anything but defense

I will sling it because you continue to be dishonest, there's NO evidence that the army Stalin poised at the border is for offense at all.

>Soviet operational & deployment plans from before the war revolved entirely around a mad rush West and continued to revolve around this idea up until Barbarossa.

And evidence of that? Where does your mad rush come from? Without fuel and ammunition? Wouldn't this mad rush actually be beneficial for opposing forces?

You don't think this through. You think the Soviet are these stupid bumbling idiots and have the germans handling the war for them in a silver platter. And you call people who think the germans being stupid are jews.

>>617330

>The fact that they had improper logistics and leadership is not evidence of a lack of intention

So where is your proof of intention in the first place? Why the hell does everyone have to refute a point you never even proved?

Suvorov is a glow in the dark nigger and you are retarded, end of discussion.

>>617523

As a bonus, he was a direct witness to the Armenian genocide as vice-consul of Erzerum, 'was considered one of the most outspoken individuals against the deportations and subsequent massacres of Armenians,' and presumably did or could have hated the Turks thereafter. That in mind, he'd likely be a fervent advocate of a pro-Greece policy, simultaneously strengthening the position pro-Axis/German elements like Metaxes there against the pro-British royalists, as well as lending Hitler and the German diplomatic offices to strongly advise Mussolini against an anti-Greek policy, very specifically, very pointedly. At the same time, successfully arguing against the nonsense and ultimately fruitless idea of courting the Turks, who hadn't been the stiffest of allies in the first war, nor was the Sabbatean Ataturk or his successors interested in the least in becoming anything more than a self-interested tumor in the New Order or a wartime turncoat, insofar as either was more useful than continued neutrality.

As a result, Mussolini (begrudgingly perhaps) never breaks from trying to seduce Greece out of frustration in favor of a virulent anti-Greek propaganda campaign nor does he embark on an invasion against Greece to soothe his bruised ego over Egypt not going his way, to have a victory that's 'his,' and instead eventually gets Greece into the Axis. No German-Italian shitshow in Greece, no delay on Barbarossa (may be good or bad, because the spring mud season could easily be worse for the mass retreating/encircled Soviets than the Germans, who will be second to hit the Rasputitsa) and the possibility that Britain throws itself into the maw of the Greek hills & mountains with an expeditionary force to support the shrinking Anglophile faction. Something like a second (and third, and fourth…) Dieppe Raid on the Mediterranean. Bad tidings for Britain. And on the other hand, Turkey becomes a possible target & avenue of advance toward both the Levant and the Caucasus, as though the hill country is supremely rough, I don't have the greatest faith in the Turkish army of the '40s compared to that of Greece, with or without external support, to resist a concerted effort to seize the coasts, cut supply and force them into armistice, pocketed somewhere in central-eastern Anatolia. Casus belli is easy; Italy wants vital space, strategic land/port sites & its promised WWI gains in Anatolia, Greece wants payback and to give another go at fulfilling the Great Idea, both embark against Turkey with support from Germany, perhaps the Bulgars in hopes of getting some concessions from Greece for their support, and Romania in order to keep the Black Sea secure.

>>617495

You've dismantled nothing, you've restated the same unauthoritative points that've already been contended with to a deadlock distinctly out of your favor. 'They didn't prepare enough, so they weren't preparing. They couldn't go off half-cocked or intend to because I think it's illogical.' You even ignored the bolded points of two extremes of general staff demanding a more extensive buildup prior to invading Finland and triumphalist morons who had no fucking clue what they were doing, illustrating that they did not prepare so well as could have or as you claimed and 'merely' bunked the tactical level (which is somehow why they were beset by severe operational failures? Usually, success in the former happens in spite of the latter, and only somewhat rarely does failing the former snowball into the latter!) but rather failed on all levels, despite substantial advantaging in position. And by demonstrating that, demonstrating they're more than capable of doing it again. Because as shown at Khalkin, without millions of deaths and the loss of the borders, the Soviets do not fucking learn.

>The Suvorov's theory is debunked, because:

<equally or more circumstantial points stated with far less elaboration than my opposition

I am not convinced.

>Yes, the smart germans, who supposedly see how badly the ruskies did in the invasion of Finland, instead IMMEDIATELY attack Russia and got into a strangehold where they cannot escape from

Is it better to let them continue their massive buildup on the borders and attack at advantage, thinking you might be able to draw them out and bleed them white (with your far lesser margin of error in land available compared to the Soviets who did just that) and risk being overrun by a second front you have not necessarily dictated the tempo of? Or is it better to not risk that, or the consolidation of the enemy, and instead tear him down? Had they the arms, the will, the shrewd foresight, and the political consolidation, this could have been done, but they did not have these things though they could have, and perished.

>>617524

>and earn international hatred.

From who? Jews? Communists? That whole 'this man is your friend, he fights for FREEDOM' line was not bought in the least in the West; 'Europe First' was an unpopular line in America for a reason. Meanwhile, communist savagery posed a continual headache for parliamentary-democratic propagandists from the outset of the Soviet revolutions in the first war, because mass killings of avowed Christians, priests, ethnically high-class Russians, nobles, and other groups resistant to Bolshevism and its literally criminal gangs loosed from every prison and seedy bolthole in Russia made for far more convincingly horrifying stuff than British atrocity propaganda, human corpse factories and the like. The 'Why We Fight' films were always full of puerile inventions and outright lies. Soldiers acted out of duty, the compulsion of the draft, or under false notions foisted on them. Postwar regret and dispute of its justness in the face of the Cold War in a split Europe was immediate and virulent, it took decades of lying, forgetting, dying and Stockholmed soldierly buyers' remorsing at what they'd done and the kvetching of idiot hurrah-patriot reactionaries who, in spite of hating the result of the war, still wouldn't let a rival take the fore, to get to the point where that dreck is actually believed.

>I will sling it because you continue to be dishonest, there's NO evidence that the army Stalin poised at the border is for offense at all.

>And evidence of that? Where does your mad rush come from?

Again per Wikipedia, the shittiest, most baseline, lazy source where the dual streams of the most definite facts and the most kiked-up nonsense run parallel to each other, the most trivially easy way to brush up by simply filtering out the babies-on-bayonets and cultural Marxist dreck in favor of points where the truth bleeds through, even better when it doesn't explicitly contradict the usual prate but is simply left out from it.

>'Stalin publicly declared that "the ultimate victory of socialism… can only be achieved on an international scale". ''Under this theory, Soviet leaders therefore started preparations for a large-scale war of aggression.

Explicitly, Soviet policy revolved around preparing for a knock-down war of aggression against all other powers as the vanguard of world revolution.

>'He said as early as 1925 that "Struggles, conflicts and wars among our enemies are…our great ally…and the greatest supporter of our government and our revolution" and '''"If a war does break out, we will not sit with folded arms – we will have to take the field, but we will be last to do so. And we shall do so in order to throw the decisive load on the scale"'

As soon as the Western powers appear preoccupied enough, attack as the last entrant. This is again the explicit plan, and mid-1941 is valid for this prerequisite.

>Another piece of evidence is Stalin's speech of 5 May 1941, when he spoke to graduating military cadets. He proclaimed: "A good defense signifies the need to attack. Attack is the best form of defense…. We must now conduct a peaceful, defensive policy with attack. Yes, defense with attack. We must now re-teach our army and commanders. Educate them in the spirit of attack".

Everything to the offensive. The attack is in itself the defense. There is no more obvious a statement as to Soviet policy being that of an aggressive war preempting anyone elses' preemptive attacks. And the oppositions' preening critique, which dovetails nicely with your 'it was just a show of force' farce, really gets my goat.

<However, according to Michael Jabara Carley, this speech could be equally interpreted as a deliberate attempt to discourage the Germans from launching an invasion.

Which the Germans would do so well indirectly hearing, since the Abwehr was infamously atrocious at intelligence gathering! Of course he was only addressing these cadets with the ulterior motive of discouraging the spying-deaf & blind Germans! But as a public address to cadets, I suppose it would be publicized, wouldn't it? But gee, it sure seems strange that his proclaiming 'ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK' in private and 'ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK' in public line up perfectly, and so does the Soviets' ability to bungle offensive operational preparations on an enormous level which has stuck with them for the entirety of that states' existence and has solely been mitigated by opposing operational incompetence and lack of will, even as early as the Russian Civil War.

>>617525

>Colonel Dr. Pavel N. Bobylev was one of the military historians from the Soviet (later Russian) Ministry of Defense who in 1993 published the materials of the January 1941 games-on-maps. More than 60 top Soviet officers for about ten days in January rehearsed the possible scenarios of the beginning of the war with Germany and its allies. These materials show that no battles were played out on the Soviet soil. The action started only when the Soviets ("Easterners") attacked westward from their border, and in the second game("South variant")- even from the positions deep inside the enemy's land.

Even their wargames that year were purely on a Soviet offensive basis. Carried out months in advance of June, which seems to me more than a little suggestive of their intent to engage within the year, else as soon as possible.

All excerpted from below. Or can you even read the things you supposedly 'dismantle?' Furthermore, this 'dishonest' wording- I think that's very telling of your affiliation. I'm not misinformed, not out of sorts, not this or that. I am dishonest, an ebil nadzi telling lies about good ol' Uncle Joe in the face of your stunning and unassailable Vietcommie statement that boils down to, 'no they didn't. It doesn't make sense that they would/did.' And while I'm fond of saying similar things in the face of large smoke-and-mirror acts professing to be 'evidence,' because it is nice to be bald-faced in the face of a hated enemy and to conserve your energy against them, I tend to make sure I have more circumstantial or objective ground to stand on than the perceived illogic in someone doing something without any additional supporting elements.

The circumstantial evidence for Suvorov is damning; the critique against all revolves around Suvorov making misinformed mistakes about a particular fighting vehicle or instatement of a policy versus intensification, e.g conscription, or that Stalin wasn't preempted at the last minute, but generally with all his consideration being for an offensive war somewhat later. But one wonders, why get so many improperly reorganized troops into proper forward offensive positions if you're just going to hold them there for months if you aren't intending to either crash-reorganize or attempt to soldier on through? 'Show of force' is not an answer. Stalin does not show force, he utilizes it, with a minimum of saber rattling, but he makes sure that rattling is particularly loud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy

>You don't think this through.

Is that why there's four posts in mine alone of explanatory conscious thought, some contending with your incessant repetition? Or why the other fellow(s) was/were doing much the same? Because we're 'not thinking this through?' As compared to your non-English native speaking, second-world self, bereft of full literacy for the sources you use from the West and assuming trilingual access to any decent Eastern source (which is going to be Japan, because the Chinese are ridiculous liemongers and the secondary powers of the area including yours certainly aren't likely to be the most sterling outside their backyard) will still be colored still by half-truths and misunderstandings from their position, in some ways being more correct than Western sources, in others less, both due to language barrier and insulation from Western traditions. We must be lying idiots and our castles of pure perfidious sand, as opposed to your sturdy rathole mud.

let's hear it for contiguous post NUMBER FIVE

>>617526

>You think the Soviet are these stupid bumbling idiots and have the germans handling the war for them in a silver platter.

That is factually what happened. Until the Germans & company reached the end of their entirely avoidable logistical rope & make enough further missteps for the carpet rolling to begin, all thanks to the cancer that is the short war mentality, the Soviet army was a band of ill-equipped ill-led politicized fuck-ups who handed millions of men over into death and captivity through the '41 encirclements. After the roll begins, it was a variably led band of politicized semi-fuckups with a crushing operational advantage shoring up their tactical & materiel quality failure rolling back their previous total operational failure. Again, are you a Marxian apologist or worse, considering your location?

>And you call people who think the germans being stupid are jews.

I haven't called anyone a Jew as yet nor do I think there'll be reason to, not even the usual Polish-German grudge shitflingers if they should show up, and I don't feel it'd be polite to call you a zipperhead. I'm just going to call you stubborn as an ox and tell you to kindly reconsider your position or at least give reasonable consideration to that of your opposites, of which yours seems to be coming from a point of personal haughtiness rather than fact, disputed or undisputed. The Soviets were not strangers to rushed, bungled operations on sodden operational grounds. Zhukov and the neo-Deep Battle advocates only started getting their way midwar, and atrociously stretched logistical trains neither stopped the Germans or the Soviets; by the time the latter reached Berlin, their armies were on a battered shoestring.

More than once the general advance came to a halt before then because of an exhausting operation, but they did not neglect to embark on such operations- including those that failed- simply because they were exhausting or the logistics weren't fully, certainly there. Wars have gambles. Stalin appears to have made one- the preparation for an aggressive preemptive war that was itself preempted- and lost in a fashion that was very usual to him and his state in all their other bungling in the Winter War and the Polish-Soviet War, even if the enormity of the task of the Axis combined with their failing to understand what was necessary for it eventually resulted in their own failure. Stalin, meanwhile, ate crow with the Western democratic powers firmly back on the continent, and cancelled the construction of the Tower of the Soviets meant to commemorate his total victory a blubbering drunk. Its foundation later became a swimming pool.

Suvorov is convincing, plausible, essentially correct in spite of inexpert mistakes excusably made in the pre-digital revolution 1980s, and the only question remaining is when Stalin goes for the backstab, for which June 1941 is again a valid answer. No, it wouldn't be sensible. Yes, it would be a debacle. No, that does not stop Stalin, and that it would be a debacle does not change that putting the offensive shoe on the other foot for the Axis might've been the right way to go if Barbarossa didn't jump Stalin's gun regardless.

>>617524

>You've dismantled nothing, you've restated the same unauthoritative points that've already been contended with to a deadlock distinctly out of your favor. 'They didn't prepare enough, so they weren't preparing. They couldn't go off half-cocked or intend to because I think it's illogical.'

The point is they have not geared their force for offense in 1941 or even 1942 even, thus there's NO reason to assume they are going to attack.

>You even ignored the bolded points of two extremes of general staff demanding a more extensive buildup prior to invading Finland

That is a point you ignore, they HAVE prepared for Finland, what they failed at is DESPITE the preparation, they still fail at tactics.

>which is somehow why they were beset by severe operational failures?

Which is what exactly? The Soviet weren't running out of men and supplies in Finland invasion.

>Is it better to let them

When the enemies are a mistake, let them.

Wait for the Soviet to attack, let them stretch their logistics, and then destroy them in return.

Instead, the germans attacked first, STRETCHED their own logistics and then fought a defensive war to Berlin. PATHETIC.

>From who? Jews? Communists?

From the whole world, bitch boi.

The allies were waiting for either bloc to move and support the ones who lose first. The germans open a 2 front war, and already is declared war with the French/Brits, thus they are going to lose first.

>That is factually what happened. Until the Germans & company reached the end of their entirely avoidable logistical rope & make enough further missteps for the carpet rolling to begin,

This is literally a doublethink. You think that actually happened until the Soviet gets their shit together and destroy the germans.

And you think this is the germans being smart or the problem of "short war" strategy.

>Stalin's speech

Is not proof. Hitler said in Mein Kampf that they need to defeat the Bolsheviks jews, thus this is enough for the Soviet to attack the germans, do you think? Oh wait, it doesn't.

>Even their wargames that year were purely on a Soviet offensive basis.

Because the portion of Soviet is incredibly hard to defend, being all solid terrains, good for tank and infantry to break though. Meanwhile in the tundra, near Moscow, that is where their true game lies, and germans caught their bat hook and sinker.

>ut one wonders, why get so many improperly reorganized troops into proper forward offensive positions if you're just going to hold them there for months if you aren't intending to either crash-reorganize or attempt to soldier on through? 'Show of force' is not an answer. Stalin does not show force, he utilizes it, with a minimum of saber rattling, but he makes sure that rattling is particularly loud.

Except through the entire Cold War, Stalin utilizes this exact show of force with thousands of tank parades. Where was this fated invasion of Europe? Where?

>Suvorov is convincing, plausible, essentially correct in spite of inexpert mistakes

Again, where? He has no proof, he has no logic and he utilizes EXEMPTION (errr…the least likely to happen is the most likely) to excuse.

You really don't think this through. Try again.

>>617530

>Because the portion of Soviet border is incredibly hard to defend*

>>617527

>Marxian apologist

I especially take offense at this.

The germans could have won that war, they could have baited the Ruskies to attack and destroy them.

They could have their Reich to now.

But they piss that chance in the drain, and now you sit here praise them like fucking heroes when Hitler made a goddamn BASIC mistake in military strategy.

Fuck you for saying I apologize for Marx while you literally drip of Hitler's cum.

>>617530

>The point is they have not geared their force for offense in 1941 or even 1942 even, thus there's NO reason to assume they are going to attack.

And yet their entire doctrine revolves around the offensive, their entire political and societal posture is towards the offensive, all their weapons procurement selections are offensively oriented, and their entire state, as a left-socialist barracks regime, can only survive through cannibalizing other states and keeping them in line through secret police terror, meaning they have to take to the offensive sooner rather than later, and their bungling definitely points to the further end of 'soon.'

>That is a point you ignore, they HAVE prepared for Finland, what they failed at is DESPITE the preparation, they still fail at tactics.

No, it's not. If they prepared for Finland in full, they would not have failed so utterly even with the terrain and their officership. They were willing to go ahead anyways in sheer pigheadedness against the advisory of generals who said, 'We are not and have not prepared operationally for this endeavor.' That they made preparations does not mean they prepared.

>Which is what exactly? The Soviet weren't running out of men and supplies in Finland invasion.

Really? Last I checked they took massively disproportionate losses in men and materiel operating under supply shortage while scantly accomplishing any of their stated objectives militarily until late in the war, more losses than they were sane to take for their gains (Baltic islands, with the wishful thinking of a regime change) hence the truce until the Continuation War. The Finns were too generous in ceding the islands in the end.

>When the enemies are a mistake, let them.

You've garbled that quote pretty thoroughly, and I'm not sure if that was supposed to be Napoleon or Sun Tzu, nor does it matter. You let the enemy make mistakes after dictating his pace to him.

>Wait for the Soviet to attack, let them stretch their logistics, and then destroy them in return.

And how likely is that as opposed to their having worked the glitches out by the time they open a second front at their leisure? Having written more than a few paragraphs in this very thread on 'what if Russia did the Barbarossa,' concluding it as a very unsure and equally destructive thing, why would one want that to unfold on German territory and destroy one's ability to wage war in the West with far greater immediacy than losing and getting rolled back in the East?

More importantly, do you realize that the land area of the Soviet Union is very, very, very large compared to that of Germany and western Poland? Do you realize that the margin of error for letting the Soviet air force of thousands of planes get off the ground instead of destroying them at the field, of letting Christie suspension tankmen run riot down the Autobahn, and of letting a cloud of rapine Soviet locusts literally descend from the sky as paratroops over the backline is infinitesimally small and a really, really awful idea compared to a preemptive strike, since it will likely result in 1941 and '45 tier destruction in far more densely urban eastern German territories & industrial assets that would otherwise be imposed on Soviet townships, industry, and empty steppe?

>>617547

>Instead, the germans attacked first, STRETCHED their own logistics and then fought a defensive war to Berlin.

That'll happen when you don't kill, subordinate or convert your more reactionary or outright treacherous generals while alienating total war advocates like Ludendorff and killing deep reserve & shock warfare fetishists like Rohm.

>PATHETIC.

I don't like to bant and deeply prefer serious constructive discussion, but this is coming from a nation that 'won' its foremost modern war (to its own severe detriment) by getting its shit beaten in while dealing scratch counter damage until winning by default when peaceniks kill the opposing war effort and leave the anticommunists high and dry.

>The allies were waiting for either bloc to move and support the ones who lose first.

Absolute nonsense. Roosevelt was entirely dedicated to dismantling empires and killing ideologies against plutocratic democracy. Churchill was a war fetishist with a giant boner for killing Germans in particular and a secondary personal distaste against communism, which can ill be verified considering the explicitly Jewish portion of his heritage. Eisenhauer was 'the terrible Swedish Jew.' The French were imbeciles who wanted to relive their Napoleonic days of destroying nations and creating buffers by destroying nation-states and annexing portions as buffers, because 'muh Rhine frontier.' The allies and all the cliques of import among them were posited almost entirely against Germany well before day one, with any opposition to communism being deeply secondary and most likely an insincere element of social engineering dialectic at that.

>This is literally a doublethink. You think that actually happened until the Soviet gets their shit together and destroy the germans.

No, it's factually what happened. The Soviets were largely whipped all the way to Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad, their shit kicked almost entirely in throughout their fighting retreat and suffering multiple severe encirclements, until the Germans choked on the logistical rope around their necks that they themselves placed by incompetence.

>And you think this is the germans being smart or the problem of "short war" strategy.

Unlike the Soviets, their margin of error was far smaller. More fronts to fight, more procurement mistakes that need to be not made, more foresight that needs to be had, more long-sightedness necessary to correctly prepare for and wage the war in advance of when lessons can be learned through the surprise of experience rather than intelligent theory. Short war mentality is death, and it is what the Germans suffered from, hence their maintaining of far too substantial a civilian economy, holding out far too much hope of reaching out to blocs that had been totally infested by their racial-political enemies for a white or negotiated peace, and their closure of far too many fruitful weapon and technology procurement lines in the prewar for worries of 'expense' when the pre and early war is when they need to experiment fanatically so that they can consolidate properly later on.

Further, their failure to make such consolidations as a unified truck & halftrack park and creation of a fully tracked carrier ala the Bren that they had available to them since Belgium and Dunkerque before having hundreds of different unstandardized trucks from Germany and elsewhere bites them, their belief they can take Moscow and more in one campaign season rather than planning and acting for at least two, their relying on theoretically large-output and imminent programs that end up continually and fruitlessly delayed rather than maintaining multiple robust development lines to select for production, particularly in aircraft, and so on. The sucker-punches they delivered were tactically and at first operationally brilliant. Their inability to plan ahead and telescope their thinking towards a true total war and its necessities from the outset were not.

>>617548

>Is not proof. Hitler said in Mein Kampf that they need to defeat the Bolsheviks jews, thus this is enough for the Soviet to attack the germans, do you think? Oh wait, it doesn't.

Yes, it is. Hitler is an avowed enemy of Marxism. Hitler is an enemy of his handlers. The point is waiting until the right moment where you can attack at advantage and roll over everyone in turn, pretending to believe their phony overtures towards peace and understanding that had been delayed by 'Jewish capitalists' while they pretend to believe you believe them, all while Japan autistically fails to understand this is a poker faced ruse by both parties, and then strike.

>Because the portion of Soviet is incredibly hard to defend, being all solid terrains, good for tank and infantry to break though.

I genuinely can't understand your broken English here. Do you mean the sometimes marshy and unpleasant eastern Polish terrain? The territories further east? The territories further west? This is very unexplicit.

>Meanwhile in the tundra, near Moscow, that is where their true game lies, and germans caught their bat hook and sinker.

The Soviets had no full conception in '41 of a defense in depth. They'd largely killed the theoreticians and buried their writings, rediscovering over the course of the war how to do the things they'd already figured out they ought to do. General Winter, going by your 'tundra' remark, was a coup for them, but not by them, and the winter of 1941 was both early and severe. As already laid out earlier in the thread, the Germans certainly took the bait of Moscow, but the reactionary generals set the bait for themselves, not the Soviets.

>Except through the entire Cold War, Stalin utilizes this exact show of force with thousands of tank parades.

What in the hell are you talking about? Stalin died in 1953. And 'thousands?'

>Where was this fated invasion of Europe?

Waiting around the corner of the right political crisis, an effective anti-ICBM net to defeat MAD, and a coherent plan to kill all the MRBM and SRBM crews they could get their hands on. They didn't get the former two, though they did have the latter (1 Spetznaz murders fucking everyone 2 goto 1) so no general European war as the dialectic of interested parties moves towards semi-staged collapse and long term subversion.

>Again, where? He has no proof, he has no logic

Beside everything I've reiterated, sure, no proof, none, not even circumstantial. It's all just farts in the wind before the irrepressible truth of the 'Namposter.

<'suvorov a shit, germonie should mount defend in depth in territory 1/16th the land area of European Russia, like the soviets sort of did but mostly by accident because 16 TIMES LAND AREA TO RETREAT ACROSS'

>he utilizes EXEMPTION (errr…the least likely to happen is the most likely)

Sounds hokey. I'd raise an eyebrow at that. The work of those following him nonetheless vindicates his position to one degree or another regardless.

>>617550

>The germans could have won that war, they could have baited the Ruskies to attack and destroy them. They could have their Reich to now.

No. The reverse Barbarossa and counterattack is interesting to think about, and the phoenix-like rise from the ashes of a half-destroyed Germany and her allies to devour the Soviet field armies alongside an almost universally paramilitarized populace from babes to babas is one that I'm very keen on. But a preemptive strike was the way to go, problems laying in the execution, the groundwork, and other preceding decisions, not the strike itself.

>But they piss that chance in the drain, and now you sit here praise them like fucking heroes when Hitler made a goddamn BASIC mistake in military strategy.

Because Hitler struck when and how he did, only half of Europe fell to communist domination and the other was under the (then) lesser evil of pluto-democracy. Had he not done so, likely all of it would be taken. And had he struck rightly, and had he prepared rightly in advance, and had he and his allies been of sterner and less quarrelsome stuff, none of the Earth would suffer so. The 'basic mistake' you think you've identified is nothing more than a popular canard invited by poor sources available to you and illiteracy.

>I especially take offense at this.

Well, don't argue in favor of Stalin and Soviet competence while saying very peculiar things about the Axis war effort and doing so posting from an admittedly market-liberalized one-party communist state. Even considering your being here, one can get suspicions, and I am a very suspicious man.

>Fuck you for saying I apologize for Marx while you literally drip of Hitler's cum.

All things considered, I'd rather be Führersamenflüssigkeit than a dangling coastal taint-hair of Mao's China that he just couldn't quite remove, because beside Tibet China can't remove anything except food from their tables and cookware into the blast furnace.

Again, I'm not really fond of the bantz. I think around now is the part where we're supposed to cool down, shake hands, and make amends, but should we do it with feet instead considering the monkeyish disposition of southeast Asia?

>>617551

thats no Charlie

he is a loser beta huwhite who fled there to marry an ugly charlie that her men didnt want, to live a life of being a fat hwite creep riding moped till he dies

no really, he has been there since cuck chan

Charlie do lip service for vatnik gibs, they dont care about Hitler, and most are too stupid to go beyond muh capitalism

>>617547

>And yet their entire doctrine revolves around the offensive, their entire political and societal posture is towards the offensive, all their weapons procurement selections are offensively oriented,

Which is evidence where? Is there a "defensive oriented" weapon? Tanks, assault guns, even paraptroopers can be used defensively, even the entire mobile army can be defensively, because offense is the best defense.

>and keeping them in line through secret police terror, meaning they have to take to the offensive sooner rather than later, and their bungling definitely points to the further end of 'soon.'

Which never materialized(!). Proof, the entire Cold War.

>No, it's not. If they prepared for Finland in full, they would not have failed so utterly even with the terrain and their officership.

Yeah man they failed so utterly that they didn't even achieve their objective, which is Finland making a concession. They weren't running out of manpower and equipment DESPITE the losses.

>Really? Last I checked they took massively disproportionate losses in men and materiel operating under supply shortage

They took losses, but they were no under supply shortage. Check again.

>ou let the enemy make mistakes after dictating his pace to him.

Yet Hitler LET Stalin dictate his pace by blundering his own force.

>And how likely is that as opposed to their having worked the glitches out by the time they open a second front at their leisure?

And how likely is that their second front fails? Even more likely because all of the Soviet accomplished, they learn from the German.

> Having written more than a few paragraphs in this very thread on 'what if Russia did the Barbarossa,' concluding it as a very unsure and equally destructive thing, why would one want that to unfold on German territory and destroy one's ability to wage war in the West with far greater immediacy than losing and getting rolled back in the East?

Because the terrain and the historical inexperience of Russia DOING the offense retard.

>More importantly, do you realize that the land area of the Soviet Union is very, very, very large compared to that of Germany and western Poland? Do you realize that the margin of error for letting the Soviet air force of thousands of planes get off the ground instead of destroying them at the field,

The Soviet air force is a joke! They have no experienced air men, and the more they focus on air men, they would divert resources from resources that matter like tanks.

>and of letting a cloud of rapine Soviet locusts literally descend from the sky as paratroops over the backline is infinitesimally small and a really, really awful idea compared to a preemptive strike, since it will likely result in 1941 and '45 tier destruction in far more densely urban eastern German territories & industrial assets that would otherwise be imposed on Soviet townships, industry, and empty steppe?

Paratroopers would literally be their hell, paratrooping operations in the whole war was a failure, they would waste troops and planes in doing so.

>>617548

>That'll happen when you don't kill, subordinate or convert your more reactionary or outright treacherous generals while alienating total war advocates like Ludendorff and killing deep reserve & shock warfare fetishists like Rohm.

Yeah, retard. Look at this! This is how the great Hitler wins war! By killing your staff and killing your men, so that you can shit out more logistics for a blunder strike.

>I don't like to bant and deeply prefer serious constructive discussion, but this is coming from a nation that 'won' its foremost modern war

Funny because while I hate the NVA, they did the exact opposite of Nazi Germany and they fucking won by sitting it out. They won by waiting the americans to just fucking leave, meanwhile Nazi Germany get fucking crushed to Berlin.

>Absolute nonsense. Roosevelt was entirely dedicated to dismantling empires and killing ideologies against plutocratic democracy.

It's not nonsense, why didn't America immediately invade in 1939? Why didn't Britain? Oh wait, the populace is against it, and it takes until Pearl Harbor to convince them to war.

>No, it's factually what happened

So what happened afterwards? Oh right, the stupid Soviet re-grouped, chocked the germans in Moscow and Stalingrad while the germans starve! And you think this is the germans being smart.

>Unlike the Soviets, their margin of error was far smaller.

Indeed, and they commit their forces like a total idiot, and you bloodthirsty bastard want Hitler to kill even more generals in order to do what? Lose faster. Because you will not be gaining more logistics btw.

>>617559

As seen here, this race mixing creep keeps ignoring how small Europe proper is to Russia and how letting literally hundred thousand war machines mobilized before you do in a war of extermination is a bad thing.

It is ok pedro, you dont have to be ashamed of race mixing and willfully living in VN as a hwite. 2015 + 3 after all.

>>617551

>Yes, it is. Hitler is an avowed enemy of Marxism. Hitler is an enemy of his handlers.

So it is right for Soviet to attack Germany via that speech then?

>I genuinely can't understand your broken English here.

The fucking plain stretching from Poland to Russia you retard. Kursk, the Ukraine plain! It's all plat terrain that is terribly good for tank warfare.

>The Soviets had no full conception in '41 of a defense in depth.

And yet they defended Moscow, they defended Stalingrad, they even defend the oil field. Meanwhile, instead of blaming Hitler AND the generals, you blame Hitler for not killing enough generals. Insantity.

>What in the hell are you talking about? Stalin died in 1953. And 'thousands?'

And in the period of 1945 and 1953, Stalin literally had more than 10000 tanks that he paraded around. Why didn't he invade Europe?

>Waiting around the corner of the right political crisis, an effective anti-ICBM net to defeat MAD, and a coherent plan to kill all the MRBM and SRBM crews they could get their hands on.

Oh right, so they cannot attack and invade Europe. While you think they can literally swarm Europe by fucking 42.

>Beside everything I've reiterated, sure, no proof, none, not even circumstantial. It's all just farts in the wind before the irrepressible truth of the 'Namposter.

And again, everything you post doesn't provide a lick of proof:

- "offensive" equipment that can be defensively

- Stalin saying he's gonna invade Europe, despite he never did

- no ammunition, no fuel

- the secret document is also a bunk.

>Sounds hokey. I'd raise an eyebrow at that. The work of those following him nonetheless vindicates his position to one degree or another regardless.

Which is where?

>>617551

>No. The reverse Barbarossa and counterattack is interesting to think about, and the phoenix-like rise from the ashes of a half-destroyed Germany

Why? Why do you think the Soviet tank force is gonna reach Berlin if they attack first? Why do you think they are bumbling idiots in 41, but in 42, they are gonna sweep everyone away?

>Had he not done so, likely all of it would be taken.

Again, and what is the proof in that? You are literally pouting this without evidence.

> The 'basic mistake' you think you've identified is nothing more than a popular canard invited by poor sources available to you and illiteracy.

That basic mistake he did cost him the war, you fucking retard. And you always, always apologize for him, and even suggest him to kill the generals for his mistake.

>Well, don't argue in favor of Stalin and Soviet competence while saying very peculiar things about the Axis war effort

I don't argue in favor of Stalin and Soviet competence, you do! In fact, you believe the Soviet are so good, that they can Barbarossa Europe in 1942 and conquer all of it! Something no one has been able to do before.

The Axis war effort is notable but ultimately failure because your Fuhrer lacks understanding of BASIC strategy.

>All things considered, I'd rather be Führersamenflüssigkeit

So a faggot? Nice to know.

>Again, I'm not really fond of the bantz. I think around now is the part where we're supposed to cool down, shake hands, and make amends, but should we do it with feet instead considering the monkeyish disposition of southeast Asia?

Make amend with the fact Hitler force perished in the east while the NVA sit out the war and fucking wins, retard.

Make amend to that.

>>617561

You got that mixed up with papi Stalin, pedro? Killing Rohm was a good move. Rohm was a thug lord.

And there was nothing to be done about the Prussian Staff other than winning all objectives before 43. The like of Canaris was the one who burned Germany. German nobles always had this retarded belief about trusting the liberal democrats to spare them, since Napoleon.

We also see that this racemixer doesnt even see how VN was already red and there was no need to exterminate them. Of course an ideologue state like NSDAP Germany could have expected the same treatment, after taking actions against kike capitalism and the reds at the same time.

Dont worry pedro, your kid wont look like you and you will be stuck there forever.

>>617562

I'm not sure the way the nazi schizos think.

1941: Soviet = bumbling idiots, so stupid, so incompetent, we are gonna win for sure, we hafta attack.

1942: Soviet horde of massive amount of tanks and swarms of men are literally going to swallow Europe.

One fucking year, and the "nazis" literally evaluate the ruskies from pests into supermen.

>>617565

Hey, "german", it's not me who is advocating Hitler to kill more of his staff.

It's you and your sympathizers, so fucking retarded that they think the way to win is to emulate Stalin and kill everyone who disagree with you.

>We also see that this racemixer doesnt even see how VN was already red and there was no need to exterminate them.

Or because the US has no balls and fears nuclear annihilation.

Meanwhile, you foolessly attack the Soviet and got owned. And now you cry about it.

>Of course an ideologue state like NSDAP Germany could have expected the same treatment, after taking actions against kike capitalism and the reds at the same time

Oh the mighty NSDAP Germany can't fortify its position and defend itself, it must LOL exterminate the ruskies and got fucking destroyed by having no logistics.

Is that it?

>>617564

Prominent superstate bending on ridding the world of kike capitalism and communism is the same as rice farmers saying and doing whatever it takes so they can go back to sitting on a hay carpet and feast for half a year or so they thought, cuz communism lol

You are making a fool of yourself, pedro.

>>617568

Yeah, the superstate that can't even wait it out, and commit all their forces and got beaten down like a bitch.

Meanwhile the NVA just sit and drink in Hanoi then the americans just leave by themselves.

It's so goddamn funny.

>>617567

Aw pedro, thinking that the Soviets and China would ever waste a nuke over Vietnam…

So cute. Pedro, Hitler coulndt do anything if you race mix on the other side of the planet.

>Hitler killed his staff

>anyone other than SA leaders

Unless you are saying Rohm, a real marxist, would have been useful post 33.

Dont make a fool of yourself, pedro. Wonder what your gook wife thinks when you are still wasting time and hasnt brought her yellow pussy back to muttland :°>

>>617570

>Aw pedro, thinking that the Soviets and China would ever waste a nuke over Vietnam…

Yeah, but does the american think of it?

>Unless you are saying Rohm, a real marxist, would have been useful post 33.

It's not me who is suggesting him to kill anyone, it's the retarded american above me who literally thinks Hitler lost because he didn't kill enough of his staff. Ask him.

>Dont make a fool of yourself, pedro. Wonder what your gook wife thinks when you are still wasting time and hasnt brought her yellow pussy back to muttland :°>

Argue like a bitch, lose like a bitch.

>>617557

What? No. No! I don't believe it. I don't consider myself true blue /k/ommando stuff, I just come around now and again for history or what-if threads on war & weapons and to see the latest fuckups, so I don't know this kind of thing. Is that really true? Why is his typing so off, then? If it is, I retroactively feel mildly bad for good humoredly disparaging theoretical charlies that have nothing to do with this yellow fever man. What's the proper title ala 'oil driller' for that, anyways? Paddy pounder? Rice raper? Khmer kisser?

>>617559

>Which is evidence where? Is there a "defensive oriented" weapon?

Bunkers, gunposts and turreted batteries, these are explicitly defensive weapons. SAM and anti-air guns sort of fit the bill depending on context and deployment.

>Tanks, assault guns, even paraptroopers can be used defensively, even the entire mobile army can be defensively, because offense is the best defense.

Cavalry tanks, lumbering assault tanks and paratroopers are not best used defensively. Nor was this the doctrine the Soviets had.

>Yeah man they failed so utterly that they didn't even achieve their objective, which is Finland making a concession. They weren't running out of manpower and equipment DESPITE the losses.

They achieved the modest objective of a concession (when they really wanted to roll them over) at the price of anywhere from 126 to 167 thousand men for 25,000. Thousands of tanks and hundreds of aircraft were lost or destroyed against a nation that had next to none. It was a poor showing with poor planning.

>They took losses, but they were no under supply shortage. Check again.

That so? Again, litmus test is dumb ol' Wikipedia, under the Battles of the Mannerheim Line header.

<The Soviet advance was stopped at the Mannerheim Line. Red Army troops suffered from poor morale and a shortage of supplies, eventually refusing to participate in more suicidal frontal attacks. The Finns, led by General Harald Öhquist, decided to launch a counterattack and encircle three Soviet divisions into a motti near Vyborg on 23 December. Öhquist's plan was bold, and it failed. The Finns lost 1,300 men, and the Soviets were later estimated to have lost a similar number.

But their explicitly experiencing a supply shortage against a static defensive line made up of 'conventional trenches and log-covered dugouts,' that's not indicative of their logistical acumen or preparation, no? Correlation isn't causation, even if you keep piling them up and up and up.

>Yet Hitler LET Stalin dictate his pace by blundering his own force.

That's an interesting verb I'd never think to read, and I tend to make a lot of interesting verbs. Again, tired 'muh Hitler did it all wrong' canard.

>And how likely is that their second front fails? Even more likely because all of the Soviet accomplished, they learn from the German.

Plausible, but less likely than a success through pre-emptive attack. The Germans do not have enough space to trade for time.

>Because the terrain and the historical inexperience of Russia DOING the offense retard.

Which, as demonstrated in Finland, isn't necessarily an impediment as long as they have enough bodies and a good-enough logistical train, which they may be able to have.

>The Soviet air force is a joke! They have no experienced air men, and the more they focus on air men, they would divert resources from resources that matter like tanks.

Yes, that's correct. It's still thousands of planes in the air that never got there historically, which is less desirable than irrecoverably destroying them on the ground with CAS aircraft, tactical bombers and strafing fighters.

>Paratroopers would literally be their hell, paratrooping operations in the whole war was a failure, they would waste troops and planes in doing so.

Or it'd be a catastrophe that puts multiple field armies worth of Soviet bandits into the German heartland, with the simple objective of 'fuck up everything in sight.' Imagine a kind of retarded vodka-swilling and far more ill-equipped equivalent of the Brandenburgers in Russia, but, again, multiple field armies instead of a single division at the most.

>>617569

Pedrp, your low IQ predisposition might make you retarded, but superstate was an objective observation, true to what the NSDAP was, like the USSR was.

No need to get mad over your life failure like this.

You are too low IQ so I repeat this again. Vietnam to the US was like Finland to the USSR. Simple imperialism, not an ideological AND existential threat like the US, Germany and USSR to each other.

Fuck nixon had rice with Mao before withdrawing from VN. Ever seen Hitler eating with Stalin over Finland?

It is ok pedro, you will find a new gook "wife" before she gets tired of you like other ugly gooks did.

>>617569

In fact, the situation of the NVA has some similarities with Nazi Germany:

They are both hated states surrounded by enemies.

But what did the NVA do?

1. They immediately commit to make friends with China, Laos and Cambodia to help support logistics.

2. They fund opposition movements and even terrorist movements in ROV in order to sow dissent.

3. They fortify their own position, basically make a fortress.

4. They regular commit to attack, but not enough to be wiped out.

The americans, even with superior logistics and air power cannot root them out.

Funny, it's Hitler who should be learning from the NVA.

>>617573

You are talking to a poorer rice cooker. He even posted his Moped in Saigon on cuckchan /k/ once.

Cant expect anything intelligent from it.

It is still comparing the VN situation to the total war in Europe ffs.

>>617575

Yes because the US at any point in history went all out and balls deep in VN, pedro. Can you cite one instance when the US mounted a real combined, extermination oriented offense to North Vietnam like they did Eastward in Europe?

Please pedro.

>>617578

Or anytime by anyone in VN red phase history tbh. Even China held back but they never really wanted it again after centuries of failure.

>>617573

>Bunkers, gunposts and turreted batteries, these are explicitly defensive weapons. SAM and anti-air guns sort of fit the bill depending on context and deployment.

Which are all static defenses and useless in mobile defenses.

>Cavalry tanks, lumbering assault tanks and paratroopers are not best used defensively. Nor was this the doctrine the Soviets had.

Except they can be used defensively, and much more useful than static defense, as proven by the Soviet themselves.

>They achieved the modest objective of a concession (when they really wanted to roll them over)

So they achieved it. Meanwhile, you are hagging about their losses, while their losses aren't enough to wipe them out.

>That so? Again, litmus test is dumb ol' Wikipedia, under the Battles of the Mannerheim Line header.

Which again is a small battle, and is not indicative of the world.

>But their explicitly experiencing a supply shortage against a static defensive line made up of 'conventional trenches and log-covered dugouts,' that's not indicative of their logistical acumen or preparation, no?

Or because they just run out of logistics! Because the finns got them in their own terrain, the genius of the Finn! By luring the Soviet into attacking and isolating themselves.

>Plausible, but less likely than a success through pre-emptive attack. The Germans do not have enough space to trade for time.

They have an entire border ranging from Poland to Ukraine in order to conduct defensive mobile defense warfare, this is what NATO has planned even when they have taken Europe. In fact, their tank hunter would help in this. Meanwhile, you have NO chance at all to win the straight fight, when you have no logistics.

>Which, as demonstrated in Finland, isn't necessarily an impediment as long as they have enough bodies and a good-enough logistical train, which they may be able to have.

And pray tell, how exactly does the Soviet can keep their logistics train when they are in enemy territory? They can't. The Soviet is terrible in managing their own army, just that they have amount of supplies.

>Yes, that's correct. It's still thousands of planes in the air that never got there historically, which is less desirable than irrecoverably destroying them on the ground with CAS aircraft, tactical bombers and strafing fighters.

Actually, their air force is gonna be mincemeat to both the Luftwaffle and the various AAA position in east Europe, this was not the time when air power was decisive.

>Or it'd be a catastrophe that puts multiple field armies worth of Soviet bandits into the German heartland,

Yeah, just like Market Garden or Crete right? Dude, the Soviet army gains strength through mass, you disperse them and they are easily scattered.

>Imagine a kind of retarded vodka-swilling and far more ill-equipped equivalent of the Brandenburgers in Russia, but, again, multiple field armies instead of a single division at the most.

They are goddamn paratroopers, without support, they are toast. Goddamn, you just picture some lightly armed troops, but now if they are paratroopers, they suddenly turn into supersoldiers? Another cognitive dissonance.

>>617578

>>617579

Huh, that's my point.

The US never went balls deep in Vietnam and the NVA knew it.

Meanwhile, the Soviet has never gone balls deep in Germany UNTIL retard Hitler decides to attack and lost the majority of his force there.

Understand it now?

>>617580

>Which again is a small battle, and is not indicative of the war*

>>617561

>Yeah, retard. Look at this! This is how the great Hitler wins war! By killing your staff and killing your men, so that you can shit out more logistics for a blunder strike.

More specifically, it's 'kill or otherwise deal with traitorous generals who try to backstab from the prewar to set up their own petty reactionary-military government with no ideology (Hans Oster, Stauffenberg and the other Valkyrie plotters) or try to hamstring the war effort to bring about an impossible negotiated peace with totally hostile powers (Admiral Wilhelm Canaris.)'

These men plotted, schemed, slipped intelligence to their Western counterparts, constantly tried for a peace behind Hitler's back (even Himmler is guilty of this latewar, only Rudolf Hess is innocent among the peaceniks for his naive goodwill!) created neat little logistical cliques to make the Eastern front more miserable in hoping to create 1918-style mutineering but at the frontline instead of among strikers and politicians, one citation that I believe was from David Irving was of 'crates of newspapers arriving in place of desperately needed medical supplies in Stalingrad,' and were very disappointed when every loss only made the people get more behind Hitler, more fanatical and faithful in total victory at any cost up to the end. And they continued to make a mess of things.

Beside them, the Heerswaffenamt was responsible both for cancelling promising projects for conservatism ('gas taps will corrode rifle barrels' 'the cavity magnetron has no future, all funding for the klystron' 'this proof of concept assault rifle isn't worth our time, oops the war started and it's arbitrarily too expensive, oops we redeveloped our own years late anyways') and generally making a mess of things on the procurement line, in direct contradiction to the usual Hitler-blaming line.

>Funny because while I hate the NVA, they did the exact opposite of Nazi Germany and they fucking won by sitting it out. They won by waiting the americans to just fucking leave, meanwhile Nazi Germany get fucking crushed to Berlin.

The NVA has a shithole jungle and disproportionate funding & liason support to continue waging its guerilla war from very interested external sources. Unless Germany establishes a far more successful Werwolf style insurgency organization and far earlier, they are not going to pull an NVA to oust the occupiers & keep Germany Nazi-legal.

>So what happened afterwards? Oh right, the stupid Soviet re-grouped, chocked the germans in Moscow and Stalingrad while the germans starve! And you think this is the germans being smart.

Everything they did to get to that point was quite smart. Everything that caused them to stall at that point in far-reaching decisions made earlier in remilitarization was not. I don't know why you think I dispute this, or why you think it means the Soviets were conversely competent.

>Indeed, and they commit their forces like a total idiot, and you bloodthirsty bastard want Hitler to kill even more generals in order to do what? Lose faster. Because you will not be gaining more logistics btw.

Actually, per that Irving citation, you'll be getting a lot of logistics by killing them. Because they sabotage the war effort deliberately, hoping it will land them in power. The Night of the Long Knives had in part the wrong targets, and Goebbels said as much himself, bemoaning how if things had been different, 'on the cusp of revolutionizing the army, we would be killing some number of generals instead of party comrades,' very heavy paraphrase there.

>>617574

>Pedrp, your low IQ predisposition might make you retarded, but superstate was an objective observation, true to what the NSDAP was, like the USSR was.

I think you are talking about REGIONAL power.

Before WW2, there was no superpower since it's still no multipolar.

>Simple imperialism, not an ideological AND existential threat like the US, Germany and USSR to each other.

Well, it's Germany who is making it an existential threat for the ruskies to destroy Germany.

You literally attack them, got lost then cry about the things you warn about, genocide!

>Fuck nixon had rice with Mao before withdrawing from VN.

Nixon was when the war is ending, Nixon used VN to D&C with the Soviet.

>gook is still trying

>let Stalin mobilize millions more war machines on top of millions more older warmachines still invunarable to at least small arms

>And we shall conduct a defense against this swarm with no oil, hoping that the mutts will change their mind about communism and see our way!!! Then they sell us things!!!! After we kicked pooland in the face for being pig headed about a highway through Danzig and rightfully humiliated France again!

>Amerimutts ever supporting an anti liberal empire

The absolute state of rice cookers.

>>617583

>More specifically, it's 'kill or otherwise deal with traitorous generals who try to backstab from the prewar to set up their own petty reactionary-military government with no ideology

Yeah man, go get em! Kill more of Hitler's staff so Hitler can win! It's no wonder Hitler loses when his supporters are like this.

>The NVA has a shithole jungle and disproportionate funding & liason support to continue waging its guerilla war from very interested external sources.

The NVA has actual fortresses, and had an actual standing army, the actual guerilla warfare was committed by the Vietcong, in conjunction with the NVA, which was very smart, and it should have been the way Hitler used (forced Soviet to attack, ramp up Soviet invader propaganda to earn support from other slavs and germanics, create guerilla troops to disrupt Soviet supplies while crushing them wth the main troop.

>Everything they did to get to that point was quite smart.

No they weren't. They committed and failed to take Moscow, and that's the end of the war. You can cry about this here but that was not smart by any metric.

>Actually, per that Irving citation, you'll be getting a lot of logistics by killing them.

Oh yeah, fucking whatever man, you want your man Hitler to become Stalin, be my guest.

>>617586

This defense war is what NATO envisioned and the Soviet hasn't DARED to venture out of their land in 1945 because of that.

The terrain in central Europe can only be taken by a massive risk of force that is not worth it.

Meanwhile, you still think like this:

1941: Soviet = bumbling idiots, so stupid, so incompetent, we are gonna win for sure, we hafta attack.

1942: Soviet horde of massive amount of tanks and swarms of men are literally going to swallow Europe.

ONE YEAR.

JUST ONE YEAR.

>>617563

>So it is right for Soviet to attack Germany via that speech then?

No, because nothing a Marxist does is right, except for when, if he really is a starry-eyed idealist, he awakens to the idea of the national revolution, pulls the blinders from his eyes, and turns

>>617563

>The fucking plain stretching from Poland to Russia you retard. Kursk, the Ukraine plain! It's all plat terrain that is terribly good for tank warfare.

It's also in European Russia, and you're proposing the Germans take the brunt of a Soviet advance into hilly Europe? Yes, they could counter-mobilize from there to strike into said terrain, but it's really not a sure thing.

>And in the period of 1945 and 1953, Stalin literally had more than 10000 tanks that he paraded around. Why didn't he invade Europe?

Because he could not get to a good footing to do so and fucking died, why else wouldn't he have? The early cold war came quite close to being hot and Stalin was keen on finishing what he started, but he turned on his Jewish handlers, went postal, and was poisoned by his Jewess wife. Then Kruschev takes over and cools things off for a bit, heats them up, cools them down again.

>Oh right, so they cannot attack and invade Europe. While you think they can literally swarm Europe by fucking 42.

That's correct, because 1942 (or 41) is at least a little different from 1953 in terms of huge turnaround offensives that can be staged. Furthermore, that described scenario mentions ICBMs and thus has nothing to do with the early '50s. You're weaseling around because 'the cold war' is a long period and I gave you the most principle explanation as to why the Soviets didn't try to go West.

>And again, everything you post doesn't provide a lick of proof:

It provides plenty of circumstantial proof, and having lots of that makes for interesting and damning circumstances.

>Which is where?

All the fellows, critics and supporters alike, who essentially all say 'he was gonna do it,' 'he was gonna do it later,' or 'he wasn't gonna do it because the time wasn't perfect (unlike these other times that he did.)' Do you read the things I link in good faith?

>>617585

Superstate means how encompassing the state is, not the nation's power projection over the globe, pedro.

You are shitposting way too early. 5pm is Feierabend in gookland. No wonder why even your ugly charlie wife hates you.

>kike capitalism with rapidly defecting products to maximize profit, insane peasant/peasant ironfist for hopefully forced ewualit, and a state worshipping and aspiring to the rulership of the overman

These are somehow compatible and wont wage war against each other. Yes pedro.

>>617589

>No, because nothing a Marxist does is right, except for when, if he really is a starry-eyed idealist, he awakens to the idea of the national revolution, pulls the blinders from his eyes, and turns

Nigger, so goddamn hypocritical, it's hard for me to take you serious.

>It's also in European Russia, and you're proposing the Germans take the brunt of a Soviet advance into hilly Europe? Yes, they could counter-mobilize from there to strike into said terrain, but it's really not a sure thing.

It is a sure thing, the forest, the hill, all are perfect for defense. Ironically, the tanks the German has, with long barrels are perfect for that hit and run.

>Because he could not get to a good footing to do so and fucking died, why else wouldn't he have?

He literally had the strongest land force in Europe and has gained major industry in 45, the nukes were low yield, yet he didn't do it? Why? Stalin is not a risk taker, he's comfortable with his shithole.

>That's correct, because 1942 (or 41) is at least a little different from 1953 in terms of huge turnaround offensives that can be staged.

In 1942 and 1941, huge turnaround offensive was staged by the Soviet themselves. So you just prove yourself wrong.

>It provides plenty of circumstantial proof, and having lots of that makes for interesting and damning circumstances.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't. It fucking doesn't.

>All the fellows, critics and supporters alike, who essentially all say 'he was gonna do it,' 'he was gonna do it later,' or 'he wasn't gonna do it

But the end was that he didn't do it.

As said, Stalin was NOT a risk-taker.

>>617590

I don't even know what this superstate is.

>These are somehow compatible and wont wage war against each other.

Here is the thing. They don't.

Which is why in the Cold War, neither force move. Too much risks for both sides.

>>617588

Yes pedro! Germany should have risked giving half the country away to manuever back to where they just humiliated half the continent!

Let Stalin mobilize a million steel war beasts! Smart move! I doubt you have ever seen more than 100 tanks at a time, pedro.

Hitler said to Mannerheim in the first few weeks they destroyed 35000 old tanks and that was enough to scare them shitless.

But you dont know anything anyway, pedro. Shooting down 35000 tanks in a defense war is surely a good idea! With blockade too! Nice.

>>617593

Because you have forgotten your own tounge, you 56% racemixer.

Yes, the age of nukes was similar to ww2!

This fucking beta rice cooker, I swear!

>>617564

>Why? Why do you think the Soviet tank force is gonna reach Berlin if they attack first? Why do you think they are bumbling idiots in 41, but in 42, they are gonna sweep everyone away?

They've had more time to build more modern cavalry/medium tanks (which may be good or may be boondoggles) and may have solved some of the non-inherent reliability difficulties through unfucking their maintenance pool, will have a far larger proportion of self-loading rifles available due to the SVT-40 program not being interrupted, will have completed some measure of the very reorganization you cite that they may or may not have planned to shoulder past by forcing an early offensive anyways, will have completed more industrial movement East, and will be on an overall better footing. And they'll be acting offensively with this improved kit, which is less than stellar.

>Again, and what is the proof in that? You are literally pouting this without evidence.

I'll take millions of dead Soviet combat troops and long delaying actions in the East as German units surrender out West to keep the borders as far East as possible for 200, Alex.

>That basic mistake he did cost him the war, you fucking retard. And you always, always apologize for him, and even suggest him to kill the generals for his mistake.

The generals were themselves on board with Barbarossa at the time, and were some of the most fervent advocates of getting Moscow in one campaign season or less. Hitler is not the sole originator of this thought, or even an originator at all. As already stated earlier, he was keener on encirclements and on pinning the flanks of Leningrad and Stalingrad, to secure the Baltic, the oil of Baku, and the grain of Ukraine.

>I don't argue in favor of Stalin and Soviet competence, you do! In fact, you believe the Soviet are so good, that they can Barbarossa Europe in 1942 and conquer all of it! Something no one has been able to do before.

I argue the risk is there and in that knowledge a preemptive strike was the better gambit as opposed to a defense in depth with very, very little land to work with and very dense industry & urban centers that all those medium & pseudo-heavy Soviet bombers would just love to get at from their comparatively to OTL unmolested forward airfields.

>So a faggot? Nice to know.

Well, I'm a fascist, not unlike a fasces, and they're both bundles of sticks, so I guess so!

>Make amend with the fact Hitler force perished in the east while the NVA sit out the war and fucking wins, retard.

Well, congratulations, I have to sit here picking over mistakes made while bemoaning repeated falsehoods from hack historians and those who listen to them, and you have a yellow wife and a crummy Marxist dystopia, and worse, one that successfully converted to a semi-market economy and managed to preserve open Marxist-Leninist one party oligarchy. At least the Yuro communists had their regimes fall apart completely and Russia has to hide the fact they did nothing but play musical chairs & invite some new capitalist-Jewish oligarches to the tyranny table instead of having pure gommunism. You win, I suppose?

>>617594

>Germany should have risked giving half the country away to manuever back to where they just humiliated half the continent!

First, they "humiliated" half the continent because you just conquer it, then lose it to them, effectively handing to them in a silver plate.

>Let Stalin mobilize a million steel war beasts!

Call me when he even gets 10000 in 1942.

>Hitler said to Mannerheim in the first few weeks they destroyed 35000 old tanks and that was enough to scare them shitless.

They are so scared that they successfully defend Moscow and essentially won the war.

>Shooting down 35000 tanks in a defense war is surely a good idea!

Not really hard when they just fucking come towards you.

Meanwhile, in an offense, you have to come to them.

>>617598

Yes pedro! A weakened, panicked Reich will not get bad logistic in the West, when the prospect of Eastern production is forfeited thanks to your retarded "defense" against a million war machines.

Because the US hasnt been set on eradicating Germany since FDR first started selling to anyone but Germans.

Pedro, tsch tsch.

>>617595

WW2 ends in 1945 but the nukes at the beginning were low yield strategical weapon, they offer no tactical advantage if the Soviet decides to swarm with tanks.

And Soviet had what? 70.000-100.000 tanks in 1945?

>>617565

>Killing Rohm was a good move. Rohm was a thug lord.

Rohm was a brute, a homophile, and an uncultured man, but he was fanatically loyal to the national revolution and deeply untrusting of that very 'Prussian staff.' He had good, total war-like ideas with his brash peoples' army talk. He was also friends with the military-political bungler Kurt von Schleicher, who believed- probably truthfully- that he could bridge the gap between Rohm and much of the general staff, preventing the dissolution of the useful and fanatical SA manpower base and Rohm's desired absorption of the professional Reichswehr into the street-fighting SA; there has to be a synthesis, and Kurt (who Hitler would later find less than guilty, unlike the fellows who didn't get purged) is key to this. The Strasser brothers, even as they were crass Marxists in respects and needed to be brought more fully to Hitler's heel, neither should have been sidelined nor Gregor killed, but just that, brought to heel, because Gregor Strasser built the party's membership base as an old struggler. He owes it to Hitler to come back into service and keep faith; Hitler owes it to Gregor Strasser not to axe him on a somewhat dubious dossier provided by Himmler as a way to kill the clique that had rotted Rohm out, which he peculiarly claimed to consist explicitly of 'freemason and Marxist' infiltrators.

The Night of the Long Knives was a mistake, less because it went off, but because it went off against half the wrong targets. The worst traitors like Oster and Canaris should have been identified and dealt with early, either by bullet or by forcible retirement and close monitoring as their sins dictate, with the Abwehr cannibalized by the SS services years in advance. Rohm's loverboys, who even he had realized the rottenness of, should likewise hang, especially Edmund Heines. But Rohm is useful. In my opinion, Rohm, Kurt Schleicher, and General Ludendorrf are all key to getting Hitler and the other decision makers into a long, total war mindset, eyes set forward, grimly devoid of wishful thinking. And all key to purging the worst elements of the army, while avoiding an overreaching Soviet-scale purge. If you want, I can cite a little more and prattle after I chew through more NVA Pedro posts.

>>617599

>Yes pedro! A weakened, panicked Reich will not get bad logistic in the West, when the prospect of Eastern production is forfeited thanks to your retarded "defense" against a million war machines.

Honestly? France and east Europe are rip for industry and resources, the germans can exploit them to 1945 without end.

>Because the US hasnt been set on eradicating Germany since FDR first started selling to anyone but Germans.

Tell me the US invasion in 1939, man. Tell me.

>>617598

And yes, pedro. Obviously the Soviets were just human wave retards who didnt know how to encircle. Hundred thousands of war machines they will just crash to the lines without any diversion, flanking or pincer attack. The sky wouldnt be filled with so many planes that interception rate would be abysmal.

Your pan faced wife must be killing herself right now, wasting so much time with a retard that hasnt brought her yellow cunt oversea yet, lol!

>>617604

Yeah, if they encircle, they can't focus their forces, and if they can't focus their force, and you can destroy them.

>Hundred thousands of war machines they will just crash to the lines without any diversion, flanking or pincer attack.

Which can be countered again, just like how the germans did in the defensive war just like that in 43-44. And this is when the german war machine has been spent.

>The sky wouldnt be filled with so many planes that interception rate would be abysmal.

Again, if there's so much air force, there wouldn't be so much tanks.

The Soviet aren't some kind of gods that somehow can pump out a million tank and plane in a year.

>>617606

Why didn't Hitler kill everyone and manage the war 24/7?

I mean, for fuck's sake, even the tyrant Stalin relied on Zhukov.

How the fuck can the germans win when their leaders are literally warring among themselves.

>>617608

What I know is that you have no chance of winning when you literally war among yourself.

It gets funny when the Soviet, who is formed by backstabbing retards, are literally more united.

If you think it's a tradition for your country to have a divided frontline, GET OFF THAT TRADITION.

>>617566

>One fucking year, and the "nazis" literally evaluate the ruskies from pests into supermen.

No, one year and hindsight projection turns the Soviets from a teetering brittle giant to a slightly ungainly giant. Another year and she's a colossus. She will possibly be idiotic, because she will not have learned the lessons of getting shitkicked by Barbarossa that get her back onto deep battle theory, but one or two years of undisturbed development is an unpleasant prospect, as is a 1941 attack, ill-prepared as it would be.

One year is also time for a Germany that doesn't decide to go East to get itself tied down elsewhere, devoting itself to Africa and near-Asia more fully than historically, which means opening herself far more definitely to a backstabbing assault by this better-equipped, fresher, reorganized Red Army, which has not suffered the backhand blow of Barbarossa and lost millions of men to encirclement, which they may end up more or less vulnerable to if they take to the offensive. A lot of things can happen in a year. Lots of decisions made and butterflies flapping around.

>>617575

The NVA was a tiny guerilla state, posing and working a relatively tiny guerilla frontier compared to total war in Europe, with a very small fraction of American military might dedicated to the mission and hamstringed by peaceniks as time goes on, with its 'friends' in China, the Soviets, and the other wee butcher-states surrounding being diplomatically and militarily immune to reprisal for their slush funding of war in the area.

A gook insurgency waiting out a pluto-democracy is not comparable to apocalyptic total war between ill-prepared fascist states, half-fascist states if one is to be honest about it, and a substantially larger portion of the world population & industry. Said total war has to be embarked upon, but it's a very tall order. If you're gonna get on about dishonesty, then I'll call this as pure shitposting.

>>617587

>Yeah man, go get em! Kill more of Hitler's staff so Hitler can win!

Yes. Kill all the reactionaries and outright definitely irredeemable Marxist infiltrators of the SA, who unlike some of the old fighters couldn't be brought to heel and used as attack dogs against both the former and as a sledgehammer for crash modernization of the army, blending a strategy for deep reserve through paramilitarization with the usual German professional army ethic, fully using WWI Stosstruppen experience to develop shock assault & infiltration tactics or further than OTL.

Also, to get rid of ridiculous early Waffenamt prejudices and technologic hamstringing with a no-holds-barred everything-that-works R&D ethic, to nip later Waffenamt excesses caused by characters like Kniepkampff (former MAN engineer, virulent proponent of fancy automotive tech that wouldn't quite work) on the basis that while military procurement must advance ceaselessly forward towards the best arms for the job and for the troops it must advance towards things that are practical for production & use, which paradoxically will save certain half-cocked high technology projects by forcing consolidation and better consideration of cost effectiveness, with a paranoiac ethic of 'we need the next generation now' far earlier lending to the German tank park being more par with the Soviets in tonnage and AFV types produced instead of moving forward far, far too leisurely, until they get panic at the gun-armor gap with the T-34 & KV-1 (and lose days or weeks of advance to these vehicles holding bridgeheads now and again) and adopt this ethic far later than would be reasonable, resulting in the Panther debacle and so on.

>The NVA has actual fortresses, and had an actual standing army, the actual guerilla warfare was committed by the Vietcong, in conjunction with the NVA, which was very smart, and it should have been the way Hitler used (forced Soviet to attack, ramp up Soviet invader propaganda to earn support from other slavs and germanics, create guerilla troops to disrupt Soviet supplies while crushing them wth the main troop.

On this point, I agree totally! A far earlier creation of the Werwolf and/or the massive expansion of the SA from being merely a semi-professional paramilitary organization (and then, cut down to being a mere sports and fitness group post-Long Knives) to being the completely totalitarianized basis for all reserve units of the army, ranging from guerillas, Volksturm third-liners and flak helpers, and the total militarization of German society across all age groups, from just out of the cradle to the cusp of the grave. But these should all be supplements and secondary to a crushing offensive by a thoroughly Nazi army against the Red Army, to the total military dismantlement of the Soviet state, and the integration or liberation of its populace as the situation dictates.

>Oh yeah, fucking whatever man, you want your man Hitler to become Stalin, be my guest.

No, but I'd like him to be more ruthless than historically, which leads to some superficial and circumstantial similarities to Stalin. People always say 'when fighting monsters,' but I happen to think that making your own monsters is a valid and very wise strategy for leveling the playing field. Tight leashes are a welcome and obvious supplement to this, of course, and quite likely self-held at that; make sure the men have their monstrosity, and point it in just the right direction.

>>617610

>No, one year and hindsight projection turns the Soviets from a teetering brittle giant to a slightly ungainly giant.

And exactly where does the hindsight projection comes from?

>but one or two years of undisturbed development is an unpleasant prospect, as is a 1941 attack, ill-prepared as it would be.

Funny, you literally think the Soviet can get smarter by themselves, even when it's proven they get better by actually participing in war.

>which means opening herself far more definitely to a backstabbing assault by this better-equipped, fresher, reorganized Red Army,

How exactly? The Red Army was fresher and reorganized due to the fact Germany attacks in the first place, which FORCES them to re-organize.

>which has not suffered the backhand blow of Barbarossa and lost millions of men to encirclement

And gain MILLIONS more by conscription due to the German invasion.

>A lot of things can happen in a year. Lots of decisions made and butterflies flapping around.

A lot? But exaggaration to the point where Soviet is gonna destroy Germany in a year? That's propaganda made to justify the invasion of USSR. Nothing more.

>The NVA was a tiny guerilla state, posing and working a relatively tiny guerilla frontier compared to total war in Europe

On the contrary, the NVA has a lot of border to cover, from Cambodia to Laos, which the US frequently penetrates, they still hold out.

>ith its 'friends' in China, the Soviets, and the other wee butcher-states

And having friends, unlike Germany, where they make friends by literally invading them.

>A gook insurgency waiting out a pluto-democracy is not comparable to apocalyptic total war between ill-prepared fascist states

But the Vietnam war was a conventional war, a conventional war that never goes hot. it's exactly comparable to the shit going between Nazi Germany and the USSR.

>>617611

>Yes. Kill all the reactionaries and outright definitely irredeemable Marxist infiltrators of the SA,

Haha oh god. This is how nazis think. By killing your allies, you win. And when you lose, blame yourself for not killing enough alive.

>But these should all be supplements and secondary to a crushing offensive by a thoroughly Nazi army against the Red Army, to the total military dismantlement of the Soviet state, and the integration or liberation of its populace as the situation dictates.

And how can they do that when they can't even get pass Moscow? How can they do that without the logistics AND industry? You can't win a frontal war with Russia, without help of Japan.

>No, but I'd like him to be more ruthless than historically, which leads to some superficial and circumstantial similarities to Stalin.

So you want him to be Stalin.

I would have you know that Stalin actually relied on his generals, namely Zhukov. He actually had trust and he didn't act like you, who want Hitler to micro-manage things 24/7.

Now I know why the nazis can't win.

The logistics is one part of it, what matters is the spirit and leadership. When spirit and leadership is divided, you can never win a war.

>>617592

>Nigger, so goddamn hypocritical, it's hard for me to take you serious.

Not particularly.

>It is a sure thing, the forest, the hill, all are perfect for defense. Ironically, the tanks the German has, with long barrels are perfect for that hit and run.

The terrain is also terrible for Germany's mobile, tank-centric army to engage in its maneuver battles in, and the long barreled tanks do not exist in 1941, outside of some number of the long-barreled 5cm Panzer III. The lag in which the Germans upgunned and uparmored is, as I've stated, a point of severe consternation for me.

>He literally had the strongest land force in Europe and has gained major industry in 45, the nukes were low yield, yet he didn't do it? Why? Stalin is not a risk taker, he's comfortable with his shithole.

He was comfortable drinking himself half to death and again cancelling the fancy Tower of the Soviets because he didn't grab it all.

>In 1942 and 1941, huge turnaround offensive was staged by the Soviet themselves. So you just prove yourself wrong.

In 1953, it's a war of continent against continent, western Europe and America against eastern Europe, with low-yield field army eating nukes on the table and wounds fresh. In 1941 and 1942, the Soviets are quite happy to gamble when and where it suits them, as stated. They are in their minds shrewd and low-risk gambles, but still gambles. I think you meant to type '1943' there, in any case.

>I'm sorry, but it doesn't. It fucking doesn't.

And yet it does, and yet it moves. It's a circular argument at this point. The case is there for both the Soviets wanting a preemptive offensive and potentially a very early one or for their not wanting to go all in at that time, but you won't accept even the possibility.

>But the end was that he didn't do it.

Correct, because the earliest possible time where it appears he would or could do it, was preempted by Barbarossa. Funny how this 'alternate possibility' and 'apparent intent' thing works. We can't literally look in Stalin's brain to see if he did or didn't, and we don't have enough evidence to confirm which way he was going. I of course think and boldly state the evidence and the facts as I see them, but your position is more or less purely deflective, unconstructive. It's rather frustrating.

>>617614

>Not particularly.

You are hypocritical, you think it's okay for Hitler to say kill Bolshevik jews, then you would cry bloody murder if the Soviet does invade you.

>The terrain is also terrible for Germany's mobile, tank-centric army to engage in its maneuver battles in, and the long barreled tanks do not exist in 1941, outside of some number of the long-barreled 5cm Panzer III.

The Soviet only had LIGHT tanks in 1941, with even shorter barrels and this carries on 1943. You realize the germans would upgrade their armory much more effectively during peace time right?

>He was comfortable drinking himself half to death and again cancelling the fancy Tower of the Soviets because he didn't grab it all.

He lives up to 1953, about 10 year after Hitler's demise, in his deathbed.

>In 1953, it's a war of continent against continent, western Europe and America against eastern Europe, with low-yield field army eating nukes on the table and wounds fresh.

So again, you admit that despite being the strongest land force in 1945, the Soviet still feels RISKY to invade Europe, and yet.

>In 1941 and 1942, the Soviets are quite happy to gamble when and where it suits them, as stated.

Again, where? Where exactly did they gamble?

>And yet it does, and yet it moves.

Where? Where exactly?

>The case is there for both the Soviets wanting a preemptive offensive and potentially a very early one or for their not wanting to go all in at that time, but you won't accept even the possibility.

I would accept the possibility if there is evidence for it? Where?

>We can't literally look in Stalin's brain to see if he did or didn't, and we don't have enough evidence to confirm which way he was going. I of course think and boldly state the evidence and the facts as I see them, but your position is more or less purely deflective, unconstructive. It's rather frustrating.

It's rather frustrating because you are literally trying to prove something WITHOUT evidences. You are saying Stalin gunna attack bro, specficically in 1941/42, bruv, when they are UNDER-PREPARED.

>>617617

Your character is a divided frontline?

Holy fucking shit.

>It is this that gives us science, art and music superior to any culture.

It also gives you war, LOSING WAR.

Holy god, "nazi germans" are literally insane that you have to teach them basic shit.

>>617618

From this thread, I'm having second doubt on any wehraboo, else they kill you for looking at them the wrong way.

>>617620

Your IQ is so fucking smart that you have to literally D&C yourself to win war.

>And nobody batted an eye or truly gave a fuck beyond sob stories when Stalin did it.

Stalin, when push comes into shove, literally entrusted the military into his generals, like Zhukov.

Meanwhile BIG BRAIN GENIUS like you are blaming the war effort on Hitler not killing enough of his own.

How smart are you? I literally question your IQ.

What's the point of IQ when you are obvious to BASIC MILITARY ORGANIZATION?

>>617616

Oh, this is just an awful post. I have to stop and address this real quick before the Rohm-Kurt-Ludendorff thing.

>You are hypocritical, you think it's okay for Hitler to say kill Bolshevik jews, then you would cry bloody murder if the Soviet does invade you.

The Bolshevik Jews cannot be killed per se, because the bolshevik Jew does not live; he is an empty shell, a pseudo-man, a vampire and golem-construct that imitates life but does not contain the breath of it, rather the breath of death, the forehead of his anti-soul stamped YHWH. A genetic meat machine, pure in its impurity, that has to steal a bit of blood by intermixture now and again to survive in the long term. Moreover, it is moral to kill or rather to smash them like so much bad pottery, because they are empty nothing, but greedily devour so much that is good in the world to fill themselves.

>The Soviet only had LIGHT tanks in 1941, with even shorter barrels and this carries on 1943.

The T-34 was available in numbers in 1941 and its not being so is a canard of T-34aboos who sing its praises while ignoring all its hideous design faults. The KV-1 was likewise available in substantial numbers. Both were extremely prone to breakdown and again tended to evaporate on contact in the 1941 period, but this doesn't matter when the Germans do not have guns that can reliably knock them out without closing very near and near to point blank; even more shameful is that the Germans had the sheer FCE and visibility advantage to do so. As a result, when positioned right, these vehicles could pose operational-scale difficulties by delaying an advance by hours, or a day, or even days. Just by being a big lump that needs an 88mm gun to be wheeled up for direct fire or indirect fire by overstrapped artillery to be dialed in, with as I recall 105mm guns having the most success. Why not brush up just a wee bit? Favorite self-contained page of mine for this very exacting issue. The first three sections are most relevant to your faulty assertion.

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance/

>You realize the germans would upgrade their armory much more effectively during peace time right?

Absolutely not, not without severe prewar changes to the who's who of procurement decision making! It was Waffenamt conservatives that killed the Vollmer M35 assault rifle, funky mechanics notwithstanding. It was conservatives that saw the Panzer III armed with the 37mm gun, even as Hitler was explicitly on the side of the 50mm advocates and demanded its incorporation, which he was quite furious about in France. It was conservatives that destroyed Germany's homegrown cavity magnetron, which could have easily been finished before its British counterpart if given appropriate development from the start rather than shuttered, and totally hamstringed German radar in power and portability, which could have equally improved her night fighters and saved her ships through radar gunlaying and AA coordination.

>He lives up to 1953, about 10 year after Hitler's demise, in his deathbed.

That's where the 'half' part comes from, and he never reached his deathbed save as a living corpse; he for all practical purposes died of poisoning at his desk, with Laventiy Beria, his wife, or both as the culprits.

>Again, where? Where exactly did they gamble?

Finland, where the western Allies attempted but failed to organize an intervention and the Germans shot themselves in the foot by enforcing 'neutrality' instead of supplying the Finns under the table? In moving forces from the Far East when it seemed that the Japanese wouldn't try anything? In the immediate postwar games of chicken, like instituting the Berlin Blockade to force a single demilitarized and soviet-aligned German state, resulting in the Berlin Airlift Crisis? Why do these things not count exactly?

>It's rather frustrating because you are literally trying to prove something WITHOUT evidences. You are saying Stalin gunna attack bro, specficically in 1941/42, bruv, when they are UNDER-PREPARED.

Did it before in Finland, when they thought they were prepared and thought they would roll them in two weeks, they could do it again. It's plausible, and the evidence lines up. Don't say 'BUT WHERE' while ignoring every preceding point and reference posted.

>>617624

>The Bolshevik Jews cannot be killed per se, because the bolshevik Jew does not live;

Literally fucking insane talk.

>The T-34 was available in numbers in 1941 and its not being so is a canard of T-34aboos who sing its praises while ignoring all its hideous design faults. The KV-1 was likewise available in substantial numbers.

Yeah, man, they are so terrible yet you are so scared of thousands of them.

>As a result, when positioned right, these vehicles could pose operational-scale difficulties by delaying an advance by hours, or a day, or even days

So even less problem when they attack, seriously. So you think these prone to breakdown machines are GOOD for offensive strategy.

>Absolutely not, not without severe prewar changes to the who's who of procurement decision making!

So only during war time that the German Reich can somehow advance their technology, despite that being in war means they are gonna lose, what a pinch.

>That's where the 'half' part comes from, and he never reached his deathbed save as a living corpse;

About 10 years after Hitler's death. Nigger, you are being pedantic now.

>Finland,

They did not gamble in Finland, they had full resources and were ready for the invasion.

> In moving forces from the Far East when it seemed that the Japanese wouldn't try anything?

Because they have received news that the japs wouldn't attack. And they didn't.

>In the immediate postwar games of chicken, like instituting the Berlin Blockade to force a single demilitarized and soviet-aligned German state, resulting in the Berlin Airlift Crisis?

That's not a gamble, that's them maintaing the position, they even share Berlin with HALF of the allies.

>Did it before in Finland, when they thought they were prepared and thought they would roll them in two weeks, they could do it again.

But they were not prepared for the German invasion like they did for the invasion of Finland.

Again, where is the evidence they are prepared for the invasion of Germany?

>>617622

>Nobody said that pedro. It is just inherent in the blood of advanced people, to question and disobey even in total authoritarianism.

So they literally disbobey and kill other during WAR time when unison is needed the most, nice high IQ there.

>While Hitler left the Prussian nobles alone because he respected what is left of Prussia and he wanted to trust them. Then they went to attack Moscow when he was sick.

>Forgot that little detail, Pedro?

That detail, "german", is something Hitler should handle. He didn't keep his generals in line, provided that is even true.

>Because letting Wilhelm Canaris live was a great idea! Applause, Pedro. You earnt it.

Why stop at that guy? Kill everybody and let Saint Hitler personally lead the army.

>>617625

>Literally fucking insane talk.

It's my great pride to be labeled mad by the milquetoast. You do me a small honor.

>Yeah, man, they are so terrible yet you are so scared of thousands of them.

They are terrible, but per German mistakes in OTL, they pose operational speedbumps due to the often impregnable danger they present. The reliability is as awful as later war German tanks that were produced in a rush under compromised conditions, they don't have cupolas at all in '41, nor radios, nor good vision ports,

>So even less problem when they attack, seriously. So you think these prone to breakdown machines are GOOD for offensive strategy.

I'd prefer them end up captured in their depots or in a rubbish heap trying to rush to the front from faraway positions for a counterattack than being able to roll up from forward positions and kill more men with 76mm HE fire before ditching themselves or breaking down than they otherwise would.

>So only during war time that the German Reich can somehow advance their technology, despite that being in war means they are gonna lose, what a pinch.

No. Wartime can help and hinder. But better foresight prewar can only help. The problem is discerning what is foresight, and what is poor sight.

>About 10 years after Hitler's death. Nigger, you are being pedantic now.

Irrelevant regardless.

>They did not gamble in Finland, they had full resources and were ready for the invasion.

Except when they didn't, and when they bungled things, succeeding only by virtue of their position of advantage and lots of things going right for them.

>Because they have received news that the japs wouldn't attack. And they didn't.

But they also received news the Germans would attack, and did nothing with it. The question is why? It's almost like none of this news posed a sure thing. Lots of explanations. I'm partial to Stalin thinking he'd get the first shot off. Circumstances seem to say as much.

>That's not a gamble, that's them maintaing the position, they even share Berlin with HALF of the allies.

'Shared?' I just told you Stalin wanted as much of the pie as he could get and came within inches of World War III to get it! He and his successors split Germany because that's what they could get at the time, the things you say are getting ridiculous now.

>Again, where is the evidence they are prepared for the invasion of Germany?

Above, in the posts, the links, in clearnet pages laying out the case for it, in every Soviet doctrine screaming 'invade Germany ASAP at advantage,' all around you! But you just ignore it and say it isn't enough or isn't objective or thorough enough and only the other possible case can be correct, because you say so. Lazy, much-demanding, and a bit obnoxious you are. I only mocked you in jest before, but in plain terms, you're a bit of a prick, aren't you?

Side note. Hitler had a certain writing tract about certain persons arguing like ever-reforming slime you can't get a grip on, bemoaning them. Ends with 'gradually I began to hate them.' Familiar at all? You're presently giving me a personal example of that woe.

>>617627

>So did everyone, pedro. That is why Hitler didn't kill the generals but only political adverseries.

Huh? But he killed the generals too.

>Hitler not wanting to attack Moscow is something even kikepedia admits, pedro.

So why did the german army attack Moscow? And why didn't Hitler stop them?

>Of course to a mutt, a traitor is as good as a friend.

The High IQ superman is so fucking smart that he will literally D&C in war so that his High IQ can be crushed. Then no more high IQ.

>>617628

>It's my great pride to be labeled mad by the milquetoast. You do me a small honor.

You are both hypocritical and insane.

>They are terrible, but per German mistakes in OTL, they pose operational speedbumps due to the often impregnable danger they present.

But they wouldn't be if the germans didn't attack, imagine THOUSANDS of T-34 being reduced to iron heaps on the road due to low maintenance, that's Iraq war tier.

>than being able to roll up from forward positions and kill more men with 76mm HE fire

The problem here is they would stop half-way and then stop there, being basically target that you can capture, and they come to you.

>No. Wartime can help and hinder. But better foresight prewar can only help. The problem is discerning what is foresight, and what is poor sight.

You literally said they can't get better during peacetime.

>But they also received news the Germans would attack, and did nothing with it.

Because Stalin actually thought the germans wouldn't attack so soon and lose the war!

>'Shared?' I just told you Stalin wanted as much of the pie as he could get and came within inches of World War III to get it! He and his successors split Germany

No, Stalin got the entire of Berlin in 1945.Remember this, but he still shares with the Allies half of Berlin, for peace.

>Above, in the posts, the links, in clearnet pages laying out the case for it, in every Soviet doctrine screaming 'invade Germany ASAP at advantage,' all around you!

All I see is that tanks, assault guns being touted as "offensive weapons" when they can be used defensively, just like today.

Mobile defense does not imply an offensive force.

But either ways, the lack of ammunition and fuel means they can't literally invade in 1941 or 42 even if they want to.

>>617634

>You are both hypocritical and insane.

And proud!

>But they wouldn't be if the germans didn't attack, imagine THOUSANDS of T-34 being reduced to iron heaps on the road due to low maintenance, that's Iraq war tier.

Yes, except that already happened OTL, except here they would make contact with German formations before breaking down and get shots off against an army that does not have AT weaponry sufficient to deal with them.

>You literally said they can't get better during peacetime.

Please identify where I said this explicitly or where you think I did, because that's plainly not my thought. Without cleaning house or the shocks of war, the German procurement offices will languish in dalliance and leisurely pace. The former could be accomplished but wasn't; the latter was delivered by Barbarossa's troubles.

>Because Stalin actually thought the germans wouldn't attack so soon and lose the war!

And yet, they would not have lost with a better logistical trail from a Waffenamt-unified series of truck designs to replace the literal hundred and more often semi-civilian truck types in production, without backstabbing reactionary and distinctly un-Nazi parafascist cliques throwing spanners in the works, without delusional short war mentality driving un-shrewd planning forward, and so on.

>No, Stalin got the entire of Berlin in 1945.Remember this, but he still shares with the Allies half of Berlin, for peace.

Half a city for 'peace,' of course. And not as a realpolitikal decision to make the fact he was occupying half of Germany look a little bit less awful, all while demanding the other be foisted into his sphere of influence in a fashion that makes a follow-on invasion of the western powers a bit more feasible.

>All I see is that tanks, assault guns being touted as "offensive weapons" when they can be used defensively, just like today.

Don't forget the paratroops that would be totally useless except when delivered as an offensive blanket over important enemy backline areas. But, not a sign of ultimate intent for invasion! Not at all!

>But either ways, the lack of ammunition and fuel means they can't literally invade in 1941 or 42 even if they want to.

Can't invade without problems. Not can't invade. You refuse to understand this simple fact, and it vexes me.

>>617636

>Yes, except that already happened OTL, except here they would make contact with German formations before breaking down and get shots off against an army that does not have AT weaponry sufficient to deal with them.

And why would that happen? Do you seriously think WW2 warfare is basically you running your tank in front, get a shot off and die? There's ambush, there's maneuvering. And there's about 3000 T-34 in 1941, more than enough for the germans to handle.

>Please identify where I said this explicitly or where you think I did, because that's plainly not my thought.

>>Absolutely not, not without severe prewar changes

There's absolutely no reason why Hitler and the german can't advance military technology as fast as they are in war, since the difference is just 2-3 years.

>And yet, they would not have lost with a better logistical trail

Blah blah blah, what you really mean is the German Army is in no shape to attack when its logistic is not ensured. Hitler and whatever German top brass attacked made a basic mistake and you are defending them.

>Half a city for 'peace,' of course.

As opposed to all the city? The fact Stalin didn't flatter Germany to the ground is within reasonable, since the germans reduced Stalingrad to rubble and beseige Moscow, yet you cry when you occupy Berlin?

>all while demanding the other be foisted into his sphere of influence in a fashion that makes a follow-on invasion of the western powers a bit more feasible.

He could have done that, but he didn't.

>Don't forget the paratroops that would be totally useless

Every nation poise its paratroops close to border for quick deployment, even Germany, paratroops imply highly mobilized infantry, that also can be used for defense.

>Can't invade without problems. Not can't invade. You refuse to understand this simple fact, and it vexes me.

I refuse it because even Stalin didn't think that way and you think he's dumb. Stalin wouldn't attack unless he's prepared. And don't you mention Finland again because he PREPARED for that.

Food for thought, why didn't the USSR just attack Germany in 1933 or 1932 when their military were in shambles, they can invade with problems as well.

>>617665

Now this is more of my shit.

In some sane universe, this happened.

>>617665

>Königsberg

Its called Kaliningrad

>>617669

Churchill always sides with the winner.

>>617670

Churchill was a pathological teutophobe. He'd rather have turned the British Empire into a smoldering garbage fire than admit Hitler was right, let alone side with him.

>>617671

You are painting a crazy ass picture of Churchill, Churchill didn't sign for the total extermination of all germans when Nazi Germany is down.

>>617672

>Churchill didn't sign for the total extermination of all germans when Nazi Germany is down.

Did I say he was genocidal, you illiterate autist? Churchill was wholly opposed to Germany as a powerful political entity, which he made clear in his own words. He also refused peace terms numerous times, no matter how favorable they were. What makes you think he'd magically change his mind on the war and sign a non-aggression pact instead of using the advantage of a Germany distracted with Stalin? Nobody was happy to side with the Soviet Union in WWII, but to the British, it was more appealing than both peace and Hitler.

>>617679

Nigger, Churchill aren't the goddamn lord of the brits.

The brits will remove him from power if he decides to go full retard and pursue war even when the Soviet is at its door.

>>617689

>Germany is winning the war

>Britain continues to fight with hopes of wooing an isolationist America

>Soviets invade German-held territory under pretense of liberation and a pre-emptive strike against the warmonger Hitler

There is no reason Britain would sign a peace agreement with the Germans at this point. If they didn't after Dunkirk, or any other time it was proposed to them, why would they do it just as Germany is getting its door kicked in? A multi-front war for the Axis is in the interests of the British, even if the Soviets are incompetent and undesirable allies. It would alleviate pressure on the British, and distract the Axis long enough for the British to regain the upper hand, even without direct American support. Even a rice farmer like yourself should be able to figure this out.

>>617712

>As burgers drop their torps the Captain of the Shoho maneuvers his ship in front of the Shokaku, taking 4 broadside torpedos and sinking with the next to no survivors right away

>the 5th torp hits Shokaku's bow, but the resulting flooding is quickly contained

>burgers mistakenly report all 3 carriers as sunk, thinking the Shokaku rammed into the listing Shoho as they disappear into thick fog

>Judeo-burger press paints this a dastardly attack of filthy japanese on innocent humanitarian supply convoy headed to poor starving mongols :'(

>Axis powers unilaterally declare war on the United States of America

That's all I can think of for now.

>>617665

>>617688

>>617712

>>617719

Churchill going against his own Germanophobia and against his very Jewish paymasters, who paid his debts in exchange for his political service, is quite unlikely; his getting suicided is more likely than growing a conscience and living through it, let alone going into the Axis. The 'how' of getting across from Greece to Constantinople when the Hellenic State is still a shambles like OTL is a bit questionable; the straits are narrow and not too deep for barges, but they're also close enough that it could easily become a shore-to-shore shelling match, for which the margin of error is narrower for the invader than the invadee. There's a hole as to where the strategic bombing comes from, since the Uralbomber concept died with Walther Wever (though perhaps it's revived with the front so far forward and Germany on the defensive?) & the He-177 was too screwy without butterflies for an early four propeller version or a fixed twin-propeller mounting, and the next generation potentially long-ranged twins like the Bomber B project got screwed by engine development. I'm still firmly of the belief that collateral like the Romanian oilfields or their output burning, which easily could've happened earlier than written through bombing and the mining of the Danube as historically, is not worth the risk of letting the Soviets exhaust themselves and their political capital with an offensive war.

But it was a good read and well thought in a good number of its broad strokes even so. Japan managing to squeak out a deal with Britain/her colonies, presumably after shelving the Malaya operations to see if they could, is a particularly interesting touch whether you meant it to be or not. The Anglo-Japanese rapport was longstanding until everything started tumbling down, after all. If alt-Churchill is grinding his teeth enough over the Soviets & keeping off the sauce long enough to make a few rational decisions, maybe he'll break from the economic encirclement of Japan as instituted by American cliques he is already drifting away from in favor of keeping an anti-Soviet balance of power and keeping well away from any trouble in the vicinity of India. Roosevelt defending the rump Soviets in the name of 'muh freedom and democracy' with a reverse Pearl Harbor on the water was unexpectedly blatant, but disturbingly plausible. Especially the anti-Japaneseist clique being so bald faced in spinning it as a Japanese incursion.

>>617724

Bad end. Dead end. I'd prefer literally any other horrible domineering space race to be engaging in the subjugation of humanity. At least, say, the Ur-Quan have a good excuse for being totally psychotic enslaving/exterminating xenophobes. The Jews are just persistently, mendaciously abominable idiots who for their entire history have been self-aggrandizing aggressors that reinterpret pitched resistance and counter-subjugation as undeserved oppression.

>>617769

Alright, drop-tanked twin engines flying a bit higher than usual. It's pseudo-strategic bombing, evolved very slightly from the fast tactical bombing of the Battle of Britain. I can dig it. It's less preferential than Germany having better schnellbombers than the (dive bombing compromised) Ju-88 and a modest number of proper four-engine bombers for extra heavy long-range duty, but it's good enough in the circumstances.

Now, even though the Soviets have pig fighters that can't do so well at high alt, with a less than stellar track record fighter-to-fighter against the Luftwaffe until the hour gets late, the opening of Barbarossa saw 2,000 aircraft destroyed from the outset, with losses of about 4,000 and 20,000 Axis and Soviet aircraft respectively over the course of the operation, a coup that will not be occurring here. Not in the same way, at least.

I'd think that since a separate peace is achieved with Britain so fortuitously in this TL of yours (that implausible peace is an absolute lynchpin, to be certain) there are a lot more twin-engine aircraft in both bombers and Zerstorer multipurpose craft available to bounce and engage in runway cratering, mitigating this loss. More importantly, the Wehrmacht is not splitting its land or air defense assets westerly, which is a very definitely fatal calculus for the Soviets. Still, how quick are the Soviets bound to wisen up and get their better crates into the air?

How many are going to get chewed up by fighters? With Germany relying on essentially obsolete 20mm cannons with a slow transition to 37mm cannons in the low alt band, cumbersome (for fighters & twin-engines) 88mm guns for the high-alt band, and with absolutely everyone failing to get the mid-alt band of 50-60mm guns working in a timely fashion (see the oddly uninspiring FlaK 41/50,) what's preventing a souped up Soviet twin engine of some kind becoming a bootleg Mosquito and causing similarly disproportionate damage and escaping? The relative quickness of '42 military/government collapse in European Russia putting the Vodkaskito's basing past the Urals, I suppose?

>The Axis Crusaders in Turkey simply invaded through the Bosporus and didn't make it far beyond Constantinople as they weren't supposed to anyway, the whole thing served as an air-assisted propaganda victory aimed at making the Roach shit itself and beg for assistance from daddy Stalin, weakening the Soviets on the Romanian front while also buying some time for Rommel and his men to arrive.

So it's mostly a diversionary front with potential bonus dividends. Sensible.

>Vichy-occupied Syria(which ITTL was only partially conquered by the Allies in November 1941 due to Italians capturing Malta but not Cyprus earlier in the war

How'd they go about doing that? Better general Axis coordination? Avoidance of one Italian naval gaffe or another? Better fighter situation developmentally that snowballs into tactical and operational advantages, perhaps the Italians don't get screwed by 'autarkic' material shortages and thus restrictions that dumpstered engines & production airframes? One of the really obnoxious ones was Britain buying years worth of Turkish chromium output years in advance, plus another alloying metal or two, in spite of no pressing or foreseen strategic need. As a result, Italy simply couldn't source the materials it needed.

I'll try to get around to the Rohm thing relatively soon, by the by. I was working on longform posts the other night, but really think I should tl;dr to the unskippably essential information and let you fill in the blanks by digging into my citations and extrapolating through base logic. The worst sin I have, and it's a very characteristic one, is that I cannot into brevity, and it would probably serve all parties best if I cut things down to the greentext bones instead of longforming. Exact history, non-rough dates, and full quotations are less important to getting the initial base point across.

>>617790

*early OTL Barbarossa

>>617790

>Now that I think about it it might make sense to change the western soviet armies and their suicidal attacks into being semi-forced by the NKVD and worsening Partisan situation.

In other words, barrier troops and 'not one step back' ethic on steroids. Sounds like an unpleasant time for all involved.

>Soviet armies at the german border are having their supply lines bombed near-continously by a densely concentrated Luftwaffe operating from their home turf without being tied down elsewhere or having to fly very long distances to most of their targets while the Soviets can barely get any food, ammo and reinforcements to their semi-immobile mechanized contingents without throwing a fuckton of aircraft flown by barely trained pilots at it.

That all checks out. If the Germans could get as far as they could with divided attention on the offensive, as you've stated, then undivided attention on the defensive is more than feasible even if you don't catch them with their pants down at the outset.

>Maybe he got talked into being covertly involved in the Spanish civil war a la Legion Condor on behalf of some moderate democratic rebel faction that didn't exist OTL, only to GTFO after witnessing the true nature of the liberator or something.

This is the same man who proclaimed his only interest in the strategic air situation as being how 'to roast more of the refugees of Dresden,' paraphrase, drunkenly demanded an evaluation of the resumption of poison gas use, dumped en masse against cities, and concocted the Operation Vegetarian anthrax spreading scheme to kill the majority of cattle in western and central Europe while leaving uninhabitable tracts of poison for decades to come. An unhealthy, unwholesome war addict since his time in naval intelligence in the Great War, and not the useful fascist/futurist/national socialistic sort either, but a reactionary sort totally dedicated to the 'balance of power' ethic of encircling and destroying any power that could match Britain no matter their relations or outlook. It's an extremely hard pill to swallow that he'd flip so hard in position at the mere queasiness of seeing some extra commie butchery before and during the war.

>>616219

He’s a fucking leaf, I’d be surprised if he WASNT baiting and shitposting constantly.

His little Polish helper is a marxist fag, who probably disappoints his parents (who’ve actually lived through communism) immensely.

>>617807

A corporal, he may as well have been a civilian.

>>615283

> (Zhukov was almost executed by commie fools)

Sauce?

>>615326

> Communists will throw every man, woman, and child into a meat grinder to hold onto power.

Isn't that why so many Russians died?

Why do people consider those dead noble deaths since essentially christian peasants were put into the meat grinder to enable Jewish terrorist to hold onto power?

>>617790

those montages almost make me want to play war thunder again, even if I know it's shit. Maybe once I get some cash I can grab IL-2 instead

>>617693

>There is no reason Britain would sign a peace agreement with the Germans at this point. If they didn't after Dunkirk, or any other time it was proposed to them, why would they do it just as Germany is getting its door kicked in?

They would because in the sense that Soviet would attack Britain too if Germany is toast.

>A multi-front war for the Axis is in the interests of the British, even if the Soviets are incompetent and undesirable allies.

But in this case, it's the Soviet who attacks, and not Germany.

>Even a rice farmer like yourself should be able to figure this out.

I think you are keeping up up a victim complex.

>>617864

>They would because in the sense that Soviet would attack Britain too if Germany is toast.

muh Royal Navy though.

>>617870

Brits are irriational as fuck and Chruchill was not friendly to the Soviet either, he's behind Operation Unthinkable.

>>617864

>But in this case, it's the Soviet who attacks, and not Germany.

What would that matter? In the view of the British citizenry and their leadership, the Germans waged offensive war against them and their allies. At best (for Germany) the Brits wait out the slugfest between the Nazis and Commies, regroup, and focus on defending their overseas possessions against Japan and get too bogged down to open a second front against them.

>>617872

It would matter because the whole european world would go crazy if the Soviet ever moves past Germany.

>>617871

Churchill was friendly enough with Stalin to sell half the europe for him before a war was even started.

>>617881

They both served the same chosen race after all.

>>617881

>>617902

We must remember that Churchill was the man behind Operation Unthinkable, until he was literally voted out of power.

>>617859

Murdering white people so jewish terrorists hold on to power is the most noble thing you can do in weimarworld.

>>617936

*Brits divert troops and 2 of their Carriers down South while burgers cleave through central and northeastern new guinea in a surpise attack before their apparent pincer movement is halted before Port Moresby by rapid cunt reinforcements

In case that makes a bit more sense.

>>617925

But le huns were bent on starting the fight with the slavs in the first place.

I'm pretty sure Churchill is a conservative compared to Chamberlain.

>>617859

>christian peasants were put into the meat grinder to enable Jewish terrorist to hold onto power

>Stalin

>Jewish terrorist

Stalin was an atheist and hated Jews so much he had them rounded up and sent to special labor/concentration camps.

Stalin had a bunch of Jewish doctors framed for treason and used it to justify rounding up all of the competent, highly skilled Jewish doctors,m engineers, professors, etc. and sent them to labor camps where they were worked to death or shot.

Then Stalin had a stroke and there were no doctors that could treat him so he laid in a puddle of piss for a day, was dragged onto a bed, was spat on by the head of the Soviet secret police, and died.

>>615273

He though that the Soviets were like the French of the Tzarist regime, where they would surrender to the Germans after a few loses. The truth was that the Soviets would rather have there country be one large graveyard than be occupied.

>>615523

How Jewish the Bolsheviks were was debatable, however what isn’t debatable is the fact that what the Germans wanted to do to the Russians was a million time worse then anything the Soviets could’ve done. Hitler didn’t see Slavs as white, infant he saw them as less than Jews. Hitler wanted to genocide all Slavs, which includes Russians, and replace them with German settlers. To the Russians anything was better than that. Which is why they agreed to Stalin’s policy of hoping he had more men the the enemy had bullits, because they new what the Germans would do was worse. In this since Hitler caused his own downfall. If he saw the Russians, and East Slavs as a whole as an Aryan people, WW2 would’ve probably been won by Germany. But he didn’t, and the rest is history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

>>618230

I don't understand why the posts are deleted.

>>618250

Generalplan Ost is bunkers m8.

>>618136

>Rommel and his men cleave through Southern China, the Commies are unable to put up much of an organized Resistance

>Chinese Nationalists are getting shrekt due to lack of US weapons and Stalin assisting the Commies

>Chiang Kai-Shek and his close entourage try to flee towards the german troops only to get surrounded by Mao Zedong's personal elite on a hill near Chongqing

>Wehrmacht paratrooper madmen lead by Kurt Student free him

>Guderian's Autist force stumbles upon a large convoy of allied lend-lease heading towards Manchuria on his way to the Okhotsk sea

>Stalin wonders why supplies are taking so long to reach the Third army, being entirely uninformed of Guderian's landing and the Americans having temporarily suspended lend-lease ops to prepare for a large offensive in Southeast asia

>Burger industrial capabilities have allowed them to construct a large fleet of carriers and cruisers to fully replenish their considerable material losses over the course of the Asian campaigns

>their aim is to partially invade Australia and capture or destroy the British harbors in order to Island hop eastwards to relieve the Chinks by making landfall in Indochina and attack Rommel from behind

>British intelligence leaks this plan to Axis admirals, a joint keikaku between the Brits, Germans and Japanese is hatched

>Type XXI submarine activtiy increases tenfold across the Southern Pacific

>In early September, the USN embarks on a trip down south with CVBGs consisting of 4 Fleet carriers equippd with Hellcats, Corsairs, upgraded models of the Avenger with increased Pilot armor

>they move towards Australia nearly unoppossed, only occasionally launching their fighters to ward off Axis airborne reconnaissance

>they eventually land in Sydney, only to find the Capital mostly abandoned save for a few Emus

>meanwhile in Hawaii, a fleet review is taking place

>7 American fleet carriers and a flurry of escorts are getting loaded in port, preparing to embark on a mission to pincer the numerically inferior British fleet that will surely try to drive the Invading force off of Straya while also doing a diversionary attack on the remainder of the Japanese Fleet somewhere west of Saipan

>news of the previously neutral Canada attacking Alaska are a cause for worry, though these endeavours are expected to end in a propaganda victory weaking the growing anti-war sentiment at home

>*strange pulse engine noise overhead*

>OwO wats this

>long-range Horten-designed stealth flying bombs fitted with incendiary warheads rain down on Pearl Harbor

>fuel depots, aircraft hangers and the decks of the stationed carriers are set afire

>the base is in complete chaos while a CVBG consisting of the newly commissioned IJN Taiho and Unryu equipped with A7M2 fighters and D5As take over Midway

>an hour later the atmosphere is filled with Jericho sirens

>the second wave consisting of Ju-87T-5s launched from the Graf Zeppelin sinks a majority of the carrier escort fleet but not the carriers themselves who aren't fully fitted to embark anyway

>a small force of german Paratroopers land on the perimeter of Pearl Harbor, they are however unable to make any gains and are nearly wiped out if not for the Japanese landing fleet arriving in full after a few hours

>burgers hastily scramble their CVGs east of Straya to assist their allies in Hawaii only to run into a massive minefield South of the Solomon Islands

>American gorilla activities cease after a few days, Hawaii is declared as fully captured on September 5th, 1944

>5 of the 7 seven American carriers are captured, the rest are scrapped/cannibalised due to extensive damage

>By that point Stalin's desperate mad dash for the Nipponese mainland is thwarted at the Pusan perimeter

>With the combined forces of Rommel approaching from the West, Guderian's memelords approaching from the east and a reinforced IJA+IJN equipped with Tanks that aren't made of paper Stalin suffers an aneurysm and dies

>The Soviet Remnant surrenders in early October

>Chink commies keep fighting a little longer until fake news of the Wehrmacht arriving in Mongolia reach them

>Mao Zedong is captured and delivered to the Axis, International Gommunism dies just before the American election on November 7

>>618321

>ywn live in this timeline

Feels bad, ember.

>>617852

>Survived the greatest war of all time in terms of bloodshed and lives lost

>might as well have been a civilian

I'll throw you an argument: Everyone who survived the first World War might have well been civilians, given the strategies, technology, and pacing of the second World War were completely different from the first, and it was a war that nobody was properly prepared for.

>>618335

>churchill ever accepting a ceasefire with germany, let alone joining the axis

Again, people are being hugely demeaning to Churchill and the brits to the point where it doesn't make sense.

>>618259

Those were “slavized germans,” basically if you had parcel german ansesctory the Germans considered you Germany in WW2.

>>618417

It's not a secret that Hitler didn't actually genocide any slavs (except partisans) while he did recruit and use the white russians and other anti-communist slavs.

>>618250

>jew spouting jewish history forgeries again

>his source is one of the most semitic websites on the internet

YOu should take some more hasbara lessons in tel aviv, shlomo.

>>618419

The fact that Germans used you at the moment doesn't mean they liked you or wanted you around long-term. They also had Muslim and Nigger levies serving in their armed forces, it doesn't mean anything.

The original text, Mein Kampf, clearly names Slavs as subhuman.