Why did they fail? How could they actually let the allies do a successful AMPHIBIOUS assault on them when they controlled all of France? Was it the low IQ? Nazis only did alright against the Soviets and small countries unironically.
Why did they fail...
Alexander Walker
Other urls found in this thread:
Noah Butler
look at how much land they took, they must be winning
Joseph Morris
>when they controlled all of France
We control France most of the time and we still get BTFO, the place is cursed
Alexander Green
>they controlled all of France?
they treated everyone they conquered including the french extremely badly
If they had had the support of the european people they would have easily won, but they didn't, they were hated oppressors and thieves
Eli Thompson
They were too merciful with the british.
Leo Lewis
>Why did they fail?
usa+uk+cccp had much, much higher counts of manpower, of ships, of planes. much higher production capacity. hitler was retarded to think he could win against such overwhelming uk/usa naval and air superiority while also dealing with a colossal cccp land army. germany/italy absolutely did not have the men, the ships or the production capacity to match their ambitions.
William Ross
Allies had black people so it was game over.
Noah Collins
Because it was all scripted dumbass, WW2 was a giant psyop. Atlantic Wall was mostly just a few scattered bunkers. There was no deep defensive line of any kind. Eisenhower could and should have been in Berlin in 1944. Red Army got held up so they had to fake the battle of Arnhem to stall for time
Fuck kikes
Austin Brown
>usa+uk+cccp had much, much higher counts of manpower, of ships, of planes. much higher production capacity.
you are completely missing the point
They would have had more manpower and economy than USA+UK+USSR if they had access to the manpower of the territories they controlled. But they didn't because they mistreated all europeans.
Furthermore, the only reason they were fighting the USA and USSR is because they declared war on them (which is also true for the UK)
Jace Hernandez
Just look at the map dumbass.
The atlantic wall is like 5000 miles long.
The easter front on the other side was like 3500 miles long.
To secure all that area Germany would have needed like 100 trillion soldiers.
Alexander Gray
Allies did airstrike against the German panzer generals resulting in 3 week delay in armored movement for Germany
youtube.com
Isaiah Kelly
Low IQ, 35 divisions would've been enough, its just that hitler was a schizo.
Jordan Johnson
I tend to agree with this. I know they wanted a full scale invasion but hesitated for dubious reasons (I say that because there’s speculation about the “true” reason for not doing it). If they would’ve held off invading Poland and worked down the Med instead, and formed some kind of strategic partnership with South American and Asian countries first, maybe they would’ve been able to succeed. Idk.
Adrian Hernandez
ackshually, UK declared on Germany when Germany declared on Poland, but I see your point. Campaigns of paramilitary terrorism do not help boost production capacity
Sebastian Gonzalez
The Wehrmacht had several hundred divisions in France you dumbass.
Thomas Hill
you proved my point
Brody Lee
Hitler legit seemed to think that UK and US would side with him.
Dominic Peterson
what about pearl harbor
Christopher King
Hitler was an anglophile retard who still thought he could get the anglos on his side. Same reason he let them go in Dunkirk and the actual reason he lost the war in the end.
Jonathan Cook
that happened two years down the road
Evan Cook
Why was he anglophile when he made it clear that he stood for germany alone? Poland was ruthlessly conquered, so were most of slavic territory... why not same to anglo?
Jace Jackson
The only reason I can’t jump on board agreeing with this is that everyone has something to say about occupational powers and it’s hard to separate propaganda from reality. I’ve seen it all
>Germans were oppressive
>Germans were liked
>Soviets were rapists
>no that was German propaganda
>American soldiers were hated
>American soldiers were nice
It’s hard to find the truth because everyone had their own opinion and everyone who occupies territory will call it liberation. I’ve read some books that argued that the only tolerable occupation was American, and the proof is supposed to be that because there were so many war brides to American soldiers, but I also have my doubts about that.
Because he was an idealist who was too naive to understand that the Anglosphere saw him as challenging their power. In Hitler’s eyes at first he thought the entire west could just be under Anglo and German control but that was already seen as overstepping his boundaries by us, apparently. But yes, Hitler might not have had it in him to go far against the US/UK because so much of what he believed was inherited from Anglo countries. Manifest Destiny from America, eugenics from England, etc.
Chase Green
Anglo superiority
Joshua Kelly
He was delusional/stupid enough to think that it was a brother nation who would eventually stand by him.
Camden Allen
>they treated everyone they conquered including the french extremely badly
That's not true.
Because the eastern front went badly - and one of the reasons why it went badly was all of the resources spent on the Atlantic wall that could have been spent in the east.
Luke Fisher
>I’ve read some books that argued that the only tolerable occupation was American
Makes sense considering that a fuckload of Americans came from Germany only like 1-3 generations prior
Nolan Young
>Because the eastern front went badly
i am curious, what defines the eastern front "going well"?
What would nazis needed to have conquered in russia to get russia to surrender?
Because i heard even if moscow or stalingrad were caputred, soviets would not have surrendered.