There was some infighting in Germany. This contributed to her defeat. And of course America and the USSR were powerful enemies. However I'd say that Hitler's primary mistakes were 1. His "shit on all Slavs all the time and rub their faces in it" policy. He could have destroyed the Soviet Union completely by causing rebellions and uprisings and playing on Stalin's paranoia. But he figured that Slavs should be shit on all the time and their faces should be rubbed in it all the time and they should be given no hope or reason to support Germany. That was selfish and ultimately destroyed Germany.
Some say that his alliance with Italy or Romania was what doomed the Axis, but I disagree. They played their part as best they could and while they certainly made blunders, they were not as bad they're made out to be. Others say that Hitler made bad military decisions and that this cost him the war. But this too is incorrect. Many of the times that he overrode his generals, he made brilliant decisions. Blitzkrieg was actually mostly Hitler's doing. Obviously he did make a few flaws, as any mortal would. But he came within 1000 meters of total victory in WW2. 1000 meters from Moscow. That's pretty fantastic given the circumstances.
No, his real second mistake was investing too much energy into overly specific "miracle weapons" like the Mous tank that ultimately did not have the potential to significantly change the battlefield and simultaneously cutting funding to real miracle weapons like nuclear technology that would have won the war. This always baffles me.
Honestly though, his worst mistake was in shitting on Slavs and rubbing their faces in misery. He could have entered Russia as a liberating hero but he found a way to piss off everyone and give patriotic Russians no alternative than to fight for communism. This was a tremendous mistake and Rockwell was absolutely correct in pointing this out.
Slavs, Germans, Saxons, French, Italians, Danes, and Irish. We are all in this together.
Kevin Gomez
Is there an argument you would like to present? Or would you rather complain about someones opinion and spam shit tier ecelebs that dont do anything but waste our time?
Those guys have not done shit in their lives.
What good is listenting to an argument of someone that is clearly desiring a different end than you?
If there is no standard of agreement then there is no reason to argue. I dont want to agree with you. I like my ending so fuck off.
Now if you agree with me on the ends but think you have better means, then please prove it.
Go back to reddit with your shit tier pics
Easton Gonzalez
Yes: that disagreement can be a cooperative endeavor, and that it worked wonders for people against us. Case in point: jews who disagree on many things, but always in a pro-jewish manner. Patently incorrect. Many reasons - such as developing better arguments yourself. Here's a standard: "does it work?" Clearly no one here has put GTKRWN into practice so we all have much to do. Kikes have lots of organizations with vastly different points of view. Right vs. left, Soros vs. Civcucks, Feminists vs. MGTOWs, etc. It works for them, and it would work for us. The only thing we need to agree is our hatred of the jew. It isn't that hard. Live and let live, except kikes.
See if you like this one best, my dear non-jewish not-a-shill heterosexual user.
I'd have to go back to the books to argue against specifics (the only thing my brain effortlessly remembers is useless cinema trivia), but I came out of my reading wholly convinced that the war could have been won at many different points if not for failings and betrayals by people with the Reich.
I know the Luftwaffe was not in good hands for most of the war. Many of Hitler's production demands were frequently not meant, and he would find out only when it was too late, so he'd have to change his strategy to accommodate incompetence. His field marshalls consistently defied him on decisions that would later prove to be correct. Even if one can say that it was some external matter that would have changed the outcome of the war and be right, I maintain that the most important thing to take from Germany's loss is this: we need to fight the enemy before we fight each other.
Russia could have been defeated by 1942 without the power struggle in the Reich, even with Hitler's harshness. It wasn't just Hitler's attitude, though, he left people in charge of operations who were particularly hostile to the slavs, which of course was his decision, but he couldn't micromanage everything. He believed in putting competent people in positions to prove themselves, and by the end of the war he had pretty well filtered out the failures, and had a strong command structure. Too late at that point, though.
Jonathan Cook
Understandable heuristic, but it doesn't serve you here. Nice digits.
Camden Turner
Unfortunately this is a frequent pitfall of and I do not mean this in any sort of disrespect dictatorial, single party states. Unfortunately, in such a system it does not pay to be the bearer of bad news and powerful underlings have a tendency to keep the leader in the dark rather than risk upsetting him (and possibly being executed). Hitler was a great leader and not nearly as bloodthirsty as most of his contemporaries or even our own contemporaries. Stalin for instance would execute people left and right while Hitler generally exercised restraint. However he was not an angel and made mortal errors. And please don't misunderstand my criticism of dictatorial regimes as shilling for "dee-mockrazy" I know well the shortcomings of democratic governments.
And I am not keen on shifting all blame to field marshals. We must not forget that some of Hitler's decisions were not all that great. Declaring war on America was stupid and based on outrageous overestimating of Germany's strength and a fantastical underestimation of America's. He sent Rommel to Africa with no clear objectives at all. This mistake is quite common in war and has proved disastrous to many a campaign. And of course, we must not forget Hitler's pointless "no retreat" orders for small islands or indefensible positions that did not play a critical role in the war effort. So let's not pretend Hitler was some sort of military genius. He was no dummy and made some great decisions. However, there is no reason to expect a political leader to be a great general. Nor should we be surprised that a man thousands of kelometers from the front lines might make miscalculations.
It is true that Hitler can't micromanage everything. However, he made no effort at all to help the Slavs overthrow their jewish overlords. He promised only one thing; to replace jewish overlords with German ones. So how can we blame the Slavs for fighting for their motherland? Better the (((devil))) you know than one you don't. This political choice that was made at the highest levels ultimately helped Stalin. Let's not forget that Hitler treated the French humanely and thus many French helped fight against communism. There were thousands of opportunities to declare the liberation of a RUSSIAN state for RUSSIANS. He didn't take them because he thought that he could have ALL of the land for himself. And that was very selfish. Announcing the liberation of Russia from the hated jewish overlords is not micromanaging. That's macro.
Gabriel Powell
I can't stand Luke Ford. Everything about that guy pisses me off. I don't understand how anyone can sit through any of his content without wanting to beat him unconscious.
Christopher Young
America was already attacking German ships before Hitler made it official, so I don't this is significant at all. The rest of your points I'd have to do more refreshing on, but even were I to grant you every point there, I'd still contend that the war's loss could have been prevented without traitors comprising half the Reich.
That is a good point about being the bearer of bad news in the dictatorial state, because that was definitely a thing. There were guys under Himmler agonizing over how to get the word to Hitler about Himmler's jew liquidation program (Before someone throws a fit, I'm getting this from David Irving, not just pulling it out of my ass).
Cameron Miller
Attacking subs and landing a million man invasion force in France are two different things. Japan attacked the US, not Germany. Hitler should not have made the mistake of handing FDR exactly what he wanted… or rather, of handing his jewish controllers exactly what they wanted. As I said, declaring war was stupid. If you're in the middle of a fight and some people on the side are insulting you, don't throw a chair at them. Wait until you're finished with the fight you have and then you'll be in a stronger position. I'll grant you that there were many amoral political animals within the Reich who were more concerned with enriching themselves than National Socialism. This is a recurring problem with any wordism based society. Obviously National Socialism is or should be based on the most organic substance of which society is built; blood. However it's easy to become lost in particularisms within any political ideology that calls itself an ism. This is a problem because if the elites begin viewing an ideology on which a nation is based as just another wordism, they lose all connection to what is being fought for and retreat into self enrichment. Communist countries suffer this greatly. The elites almost never actually buy into the communist propaganda and become corrupt plutocrats who will sell each other (and the country) out for anything. Take China or Vietnam as examples. You think their elites give two shits about the state wordism? Not at all. This doubtless affected many of Germany's elite and led them to self centered behavior. However this is all philosophical and there's not much we can do about it because wordism is here to stay and people LOVE pigeonholing themselves into this wordism or that wordism and fighting each other over trivialities. Zig Forums is a great example of that. A completely healthy society bases its political discorse on just one thing; blood. Which ties back to OP. Instead of asking "What is best for Germans?" Hitler almost certainly would have won if he had asked "What is best for the White race?" Would it have been easy? No. Not at all. It would have taken decades of steady propaganda to unite the White world against the jews. But if he had taken this brilliant rout, there would never have been a World War 2. There would have been one glorious White revolution and a real holocaust.
But back to our timeline. Obviously there was a lot of double crossing and petty infighting within the German elite. This certainly caused problems. However I'd say that it was worse in the later stages of the war, when things were not all roses and parades. I mean, you had a group of traitors try to assassinate Hitler. Who knows who else was involved. One lesson that we can take from this is that no government or (((System))) is as powerful or as unified as they tell us it is. Hitler's Germany was on the whole, pretty unified politically. And yet in times of trouble, many chose to try to sell Hitler out. Imagine the thoughts that will go through the minds of our own political elites when things get bad for the jews. No one serves the jews because they love jews. In fact, jews are the most unlovable race on the planet. I expect many elites to change sides long before the Turner Diaries happen.
