Happy D-Day

Lmao the Red Army didn’t go far enough smh

Should’ve salted the fucking Earth

S

Fascists are fags forever
S

you really are all teenagers…. retarded teenagers at that

this. USA landed on France when the USSR had the fascists on the run and they realized all Europe would be red.

Imagine thinking this was a spontaneous post, completely uninspired by what day it was

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

That said, I'm still low-key furious that all the news anchors describe it as the day that marked the end of the Nazi regime. Fuck sake, the war was already clearly going in the USSR's favour by then. The Allies could never have pulled of such an operation if the USSR hadn't occupied most of the German forces on the Eastern front. Yet again, the massive accomplishments of the USSR are brushed over as mere footnotes, if they're even mentioned.

Attached: tankgang.png (1206x1024, 1.43M)

Bagration was 10 times more important than D-Day

P is to Piss at its body
I is to Inflame its books.
S it's to Spit at its face.
S it's to shit in its grave.
tried

Attached: Mussolini fun time at a rollercoaster.jpg (979x560, 227.55K)

S

any good reading material to learn USSR's side of story on WWII?

if the germans had kept the allies from penetrating europe, it all probably would have ended up communist

If the Republican party won the elections instead of FDR we would've had Communism in Europe.

based

Attached: gopsign.jpg (960x606, 41.47K)

It would've been more retarded because the Germans would've moved all of their forces to the eastern front and the imperialists would've encountered no resistance making Patton and his war mongering with the Soviets normalized and accepted.

But muh Lend Lease!!!
What do you think about the fact that retards keep undermining the USSR’s contribution in kicking the Axis’ shit in by using the Lend Lease as only way the Soviet managed to win?

Real Talk. I love the Cognitive Dissonance that Zig Forums has that they are actually living in a Nazi World because of the Allies saving the Nazis and that it's why they have immigrants and shit like that while the part under Communism stayed pure.

Reminder that when this happened the allied powers fully expected the USSR to be conquered by the Nazis. At the time, Churchill and Roosevelt were only using the Soviets as cannon fodder until they got their offensive together.

Attached: blessedimage.jpg (900x675, 138.21K)

They expected the Soviets to lose in 1943? Seriously?

Winter War left a very poor impression.

I don't know about 1943, but when Operation Barbarossa started, most of the world including military experts expected the USSR to lose in a month.

I saw 5th novembre 1943, that's well after barbarossa and after Stalingrad. The Soviets basically won after that, the Germans couldn't get the oil.

Fun Fact.

Today the Royal Family put out a tweet that Germany was an ally of Britain & the Soviet Union was not part of the war effort. The parasites deleted the tweet with Germany being named an 'allied nation' of WW2, and replaced it with Merkel cut out.

Attached: D8YwqOjWsAEUo2e.jpg (191x127, 5.2K)

Churchill described Hitler as "an admirable champion" & admired his "patriotic achievements".

Was the tweet archived?

Fascism is the apotheosis of Western bourgeois thought. It may have lost the battle, yet it certainly came out victorious in the end.

Anyone have a proper answer to the "but muh lend lease! / muh british naval blockade!" meme going through normie channels right now? I recall that both Stalin and Zhukov attributed Lend Lease to tipping the scale in their favor, but that could be true at 5% contribution as much as 50%. How much of a difference did it make?

I'm currently reading Jochen Hellbeck's Stalingrad and, while it does obviously focus on that specific battle, it goes pretty in-depth into the Soviet mentality before and during the war generally. Much of the book is devoted to simply presenting interviews made of Stalingrad fighters by Soviet historians shortly after the battle was decided, so you get the story directly from people that were actually on the front lines.
Of particular interest are his explanations of the Soviet command system, specifically the split between commissars and commanders, and the role of communist agitation in not only maintaining morale, but motivating people to take heroic actions that make war stories from the Western front look childish.

Hellbeck doesn't seem to be a Leninist, and so he will occasionally throw in some bullshit about Stalin, but it is very mild compared to other non-Russian histories, and you can tell that he respects the views of the people on the ground immensely, even in regards to Stalin and the Soviet government.

It's honestly very inspiring. Reading it makes you want to fight, to step up and be active. After you hear about electrical workers maintaining the city's electrical grid under heavy German fire until they are forced to leave by the Red Army, or workers from the tractor factory manning the tanks they have just put together, and then driving them two blocks away to the front lines, it's hard to not have that spirit rub off on you.

Well, here's what Zhukov said about it in his memoirs:
"The Soviet people give their due to the people of the United States and Britain, to their soldiers, sailors, officers and military leaders who did everything in their power to bring closer the victory over Nazi Germany. We sincerely honour the memory of the killed British and American seamen who despite the dangerous situation at sea, despite the fact that they faced death every mile of the way, delivered to us the cargoes under the Lend-Lease agreement. We highly appreciate the valiance of the participants in the Resistance movement in many European countries." (…) "We also touched upon the deliveries under the Lend-Lease programme. Everything seemed clear in that respect then. Nevertheless, for years after the war bourgeois historiography has asserted that it was the Allied deliveries of armaments, materials and foodstuffs that had played a decisive role for our victory over the enemy. True, the Soviet Union did receive supplies the economy needed so badly: machinery, equipment, materials, fuel and foodstuffs. For example, over 400,000 vehicles, a great number of locomotives and communication facilities were brought from the United States and Britain. But could all that have had a decisive influence on the course of the war? I have already mentioned that the Soviet industry developed on such a scale during the war that it provided the front and rear with everything needed. I see no sense in going into all that once more. As for the armaments, what I would like to say is that we received under Lend-Lease from the United States and Britain about 18,000 aircraft and over 11,000 tanks. That comprised a mere 4 per cent of the total amount of armaments that the Soviet people produced to equip its army during the war. Consequently, there is no ground for talk about the decisive role of the deliveries under Lend-Lease. As for the tanks and aircraft supplied to us by the British and US governments, they, to be frank, did not display high fighting qualities; especially tanks which, running on petrol, would burn like torches"

While I respect and am grateful to the soldiers who fought there, I hold only contempt for the orchestrators of D-Day. Their incompetence led to thousands of pointless deaths through drowning, hypothermia and hitting mines that ought to have been cleared way ahead as well as bunkered positions that were left essentially untouched by naval artillery or the Air Force. That's ignoring the parachuters who got airdropped into fucking reservoirs and drowned because the British parachute release took 3 separate parts and the parachute would wrap around the soldier before he could unclasp it.

D-Day was also done so late in the war that it was essentially done for 1 reason… to establish Western control on mainland Europe before the USSR took it over and was greeted universally as saviours.

Does anyone have the archive of the Tweet that is historically important!

Lend Lease was a drop of water in a bucket
nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=921020

belated ]S]
Say, my dad was just talking about how "Canadian soldiers graves in yrop are still taken care of to this day, because the nation (British colony with no real decision making power) had "no agenda" when freeing Nazi occupied towns, wheras the brits and muricans did, and if the Russians freed you, you ran like hell, 'cause they'll rape and pillage anything in their path"
Where did this meme come from? Was there any evidence? I've heard before that other allied forces engaged in rape. There's just so much bullshit to refute and you end up looking like a holocaust denier if you can't make your case rock solid in 20 seconds or less.

didn't kick in really until '43, war was decided in '41
and even then most lend lease still went to the Brits

The Red Army rape myth comes from Goebbels and Nazi propaganda They claimed the Red army raped everyone from 8-80 (or 10-70 depending on the variant). This was to essentially scare the German populace to fear and fight as much as possible against the Soviet forces. Many killed themselves when the soviets entered, Goebbels murdered his whole family and then killed himself for example.
OBVIOUSLY as with any war there were rapes however the Red Army severely disciplined all cases of it that were found. Being convicted for looting or rape was grounds for execution.
All in all the Red army restrained themselves well, in fact the book Conqueror's Road, written by a Western war correspondent on the scene of the area, reported that British and US troops engaged in looting and rape more often than the soviets.

This is in fact remarkable considering what the Soviets experienced. Their self-restraint was amazing.
It's really not hard to debunk, its just really hard to post the evidence since there is so MUCH OF IT.

As for the sheer numbers of rapes by de evul russkies see pic related for the origins

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1080x2868, 3.79M)

Here is an excerpt from a review of the book by T. Kunikov:

"As much as some like to think that the Red Army was a barbaric 'horde' encouraged from Moscow to plunder and rape the Germans, that popular image does not match with the author's experience. The author did see Soviet vandalism but also witnessed an execution of a Red Army man charged with looting. He also describes how he translated for a German woman who stated that she had been gang raped. The author is certain that she indeed was raped by soldiers of his own army, but he cannot testify about a rape spree. He does not dispute such a spree outright. He simply can't provide any personal evidence to support that image.

As with other incidents like looting, rapes occurred sporadically and at an individual's initiative, not as part of any Red Army policy. One has to keep in mind that war is war and no one involved in a war comes out with clean hands. While this doesn't justify what the Red Army did, and nothing should, it does put it into perspective and into context. One should recall that everyone was drafted, from the boys that just turned 17 to hardened criminals who were being given a second chance."

another excellent book is The War with Unfeminine Face. In it Sophia Kuntcevich, a medical instructor, describes:

"We crossed the border of our homeland. I thought that when we get to Germany, I have no one German will be worth of mercy. So much hatred I had accumulated in my heart ! Why should I feel sorry for his child if he killed mine? Why should I feel sorry for his mother, if mine was hung? Why should I not touch their homes if they burned our houses? I wanted to see eyes of their wives, mothers who gave birth to their sons. Would they have the face to look in my eyes without shame? …When we came up to some settlement, I saw German kids running around – hungry, ragged and miserable. And I, who had before swore to hate all of them, I gathered some food from soldier ration, added several pieces of sugar, then gave it German children… No, I have not forgotten, I remembered everything they did… but I could not look without pity into these hungry children's eyes " [Aleksievich C. The War with unfeminine face. Minsk , 1985 . Pp. 301-302.]

What book is that?

s

Happy birthday Ebba Akerlund.

Read Glantz

Lend Lease supplied 40% of lead, 37% of aircraft fuel, 42% of transport vehicles and 25% of food. Without it the USSR would not have been able to go on the massive offensives of the second half of the war.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (413x600 556.82 KB, 52.16K)

Thank you, based user. Yeah, it's often not difficult to refute, but the volume of mental diarrhea takes a great deal of effort to dispel. One myth coming right after another

I think they mean it was the moment when German victory became physically impossible, although that was arguably the case after Kursk as well.

German victory was physically impossible right from the start. All their plans were based on an appalling underestimation of the USSR's resources.

The memoirs of Andrei Gromyko

Attached: 41kpoeeq48L._SX326_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (328x499, 21.63K)

This. Also the fact that the UK had naval superiority so the Germans had no chance at invading Britain because all there ships will be sunk and the British can just blockade their ports starving them and letting Germany collapse from within, the same thing they did in WWI.

In WWI Germany didn't have access to the sea through occupation of France, Norway, and an alliance with Italy.

what nonsense is this, the US had to build a gazillion transport ships called liberty-ship to prevent the UK from being cut off from supplies by German submarines.

Attached: libship.jpeg (343x272, 26.97K)

These are just transport vessels, what I'm to argue is that the British Naval superiority was able to keep the Germans from invading the UK and keeping them locked on the European mainland. I'm saying this to disprove the idea that all the legwork against the Third Reich was done by the USSR.

Thank you I wasn't sure.

That statement is the most manipulative crap I've seen
1)
nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=921020
2) Those percentages were for 1944 only. Moreover this was when supplies like those had long since stopped being critical and the industries of the USSR had redirected to more critical areas because of lend-lease. This still ignores the fact that collectively compared to the resources expended by the USSR over the war it would, at best, be 10% of the war-effort if not 4% as is commonly estimated.
Your transport vehicles rubbish is a load of crap as well.
A) Germany was supported by Western automotive industries like GM and Ford all the way into 1942. And Ford's Swiss branch continued to service German vehicle needs during the war rather than play an actual neutral and refuse to involve themselves.
B) The USSR, as with lead and fuel, intentionally let the industries slow down by letting lend-lease cover it, freeing other areas to focus on more critical things. This made it easier for the USSR but was in no way necessary for victory.
C) Many of the vehicles transported had to be put back together in Soviet factories because they were taken apart for easier transport, thus this is still partially soviet manufacturing, but is still counted as LL
D) The USSR's car 'park' for the majority of the war was almost 100% soviet made. Lend Lease only came in when the USSR was already long since not under pressure.

TL;DR Your statement is horse-shit taken from contextless chart info.

don't you get it, the British didn't have Naval superiority when they needed the Americans to saturate German submarine forces with sacrificial transport ships, just to keep their supply-lines going. Without this the British empire would have been the one cut off, and starved into surrender.

Well not all of it but the bulk of it, go look at the statistics in terms of losses and battles here secondworldwarhistory.com/world-war-2-statistics.php

If Germany didn't bring about its own collapse through stupid military decisions they would have ended up using the V1 and V2 and bombarded Britain to ashes with no hope of interception.

You should let more people know about that since it's what liberals and reactionaries use to downplay the sacrifices of the USSR.

I do, I wrote that nationstates dispatch.

The Germans couldn't invade the UK because they lacked sufficient landing craft and surface naval vessels. The Germans dominated the Battle of the Atlantic for the majority of the begginning, even when the USA joined in. The US lend-lease to the British (which began in 1941, 2 years before the USSR and in 3x the amount) was the only thing that kept the German kriegsmarine from isolating Britain from supplies and essentially starving them into submission.
Except that it is demonstrably true.
The Eastern Front was where roughly 8/10s of all Axis forces were. The Western allies didn't start actively, genuinely fighting until Germany hit France in 1940 and even then they got outmaneuvered without incurring serious loss on the Germans. The West's bombing campaign only became large enough to actually do anything in 1943 when the first 1000 bomber raid happened… and even then the results were negligible until late 1944, by which time it was the USSR that had smashed the main forces of the Axis. It was at Moscow the Germans were stopped for the first time. It was at Stalingrad the Germans had their offensive smashed, it was at Leningrad that a 2 year siege attempt failed, it was at Kursk where the LARGEST TANK BATTLE IN HISTORY occurred, and where the final attempt at a German counter-offensive was snuffed, it was Operation Bagration that freed most of Europe in 1 fell swoop and it was the USSR that took Berlin. The allies almost outright expressed the intention to let the USSR do the heavy lifting.

TL;DR: Until 1943 the Allied did basically NOTHING to stop the Germans. The British Royal Navy wouldn't have prevented a blockade by the German U-boats without US convoys. The USSR defeated 8/10s of the Third Reichs forces. This is historical fact.

Fucking allied scum ruined a perfect world. It took the whole world to take us down and we had shitty allies. Italians, romanians, etc. where a fucking joke.

Sadly Japan fought its own war, otherwise we might have crushed the subhumans.

But even if we lost in the end we are still far above any other race on this planet so I take that as a win.

If by "the whole world" you mean mostly the USSR. And don't give us the whole "muh allies" sob story routine, the fascists invaded when the USSR was at its most unprepared and had a numerical advantage in a majority of the early battles before the Soviets mobilized properly. Germany even retained a larger industrial labour force throughout the war and still lost.

You are right when you say the USSR is the main reason we lost. The eastern front was fought on a whole other level than the western front. Most Americans don't see this.

But the supply from the USA (even before they entered the war) and the constant bombings of german cities and industry plus some of hitlers dump decisions where also primary factors of the outcome of the war. Britain and France had troops and resources from there colonies.
So basically most of Europe, Africa, Australia, South Asian and North America and the whole might of the Red army was against us.

We fought pretty good despite this unequal fight and I'm proud of all German soldiers who fought in WW2.

If we had catched the British at Dunkirk, never lost to the royal airforce then succeeded in invaiding Britain and if Japan didn't fight the US but russia we might have won.

V1 and V2 could never have done as much damage to Britain as mass strategic bombing did to Germany and Japan (which still wasn't enough to force those countries to surrender).

This occured later into the war, and the supplies the USSR received from the US was negligible proportionally to what the Soviets were already producing. The war was already over after the Soviets rebuffed the Nazis and their allies, it was just a matter of time. The Soviets had the Germans completely outproduced, the German war industry was completely backwards in regards to it's production methods, and the Germans were running low of oil. Germany had already lost post Stalingrad and Kursk and it was now just in a slow retreat.

I am I supposed to celebrate capitalist western powers taking out a socialist state?

Attached: liberators.jpg (471x640, 111.16K)

nah

t. memeflag

But the USSR survived WW2?

Submarines =/= naval superiority. Being able to dunk on British convoys and being able to stand up to the Royal Navy in a pitched surface battle are two totally different things, and the latter would be an absolute necessity if Sealion was to succeed. That’s like saying that because Partisans were able to successfully harass German supply lines on the Eastern front they had military superiority over the Wehrmacht.

Hitler let them go because he was hoping to get Britain to make peace with Germany and join in against the USSR. Churchill however would never accept a German empire and refused, resulting in the British fleeing as fast as they ca under bombardment while abandoning thousands of tanks, trucks and guns (and ammunition) for the Germans to use (for military or scrap).

LOL what?
the V2 cost so much that it was unfeasible as a consistent weapon, the damage it did was less than the cost it took. The V1 was still worth something and unlike the V2 it actually forced britain to expend extra resources trying to take it out. The Nazis could have won 1 war, a war concentrated solely on Britain… from there they could expand to every bit of Europe outside of Soviet influence. Hell ask Yugo poster on >>>/leftyb/2446
The Germans weren't planning to start WW-2 until 1944 when they'd have their navy fully constructed and having maximized their power. However they lacked the resources to just passively sit and Poland's taking was enough of an outrage in the West to spark declaration of war early. This still wouldn't have helped even if they did start in 1944 since the USSR would have fully re-armed by that point and the T-34, KV-1 and myriads of other weapons would have been ready in large numbers, rather than the few hundred in 1941.

That's not the point. The claim was that BRITAIN had naval superiority. They did not because the German submarines made up for the lack of surface naval power. A similar concept exists called aerial superiority. The Germans, despite a larger air-force and more experience did not have air superiority over Britain or on the Eastern Front because of interceptors and anti-aircraft guns. The same goes for the Navy except even more so. German submarines sunk dozens of large British naval vessels including many ships of the line, while at negligible cost, after all, for the price of one battle-ship many submarines could be made and armed and they were far more effective. Submarines are the dominant naval ship today, aircraft carriers are just massive argets to them, they can carry ballistic and guided missiles and more, all while hidden in the depths.

TL;DR: It doesn't matter if the Royal Navy was more powerful in pitched battle. If the USA didn't help Britain the Germans would simply have strangled Britain from supplies until it surrendered. Judging by how quickly most of West Europe surrendered, I doubt Britain would go Leningrad.

No they didn’t. The Kriegsmarine could never hope to challenge the Royal Navy in a direct confrontation. Submarines were effectively geurilla warfare at sea, but Sealion would have necessitated a pitched surface battle which the Germans would have lost decisively. I’m talking about the feasibility Sealion specifically here, not the Atlantic more generally, and in that context, even if the Germans had enough merchant and transport ships to keep an invasion supplied, it would have been BTFO by the Royal Navy surface fleet.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=YnPo7V03nbY

That was pretty much what I meant since invading the USSR while the UK was still in the war and then declaring on the US immediately after was retarded. If they concentrated resources on the UK weapons like the V2 could have been further developed to be more efficient and unlike the V1 it couldn't be intercepted. Since the Blitz would likely fail as in reality turning to rockets would have been the natural path to take.

and they didn't need to. The Royal Navy's anti-submarine forces were pathetic, and for a while the surface fleet was at constant risk at being sunk by a submarine. The famous incident with the Oak is only 1 example of how vulnerable the British navy was, after all if your enemy can get a submarine into your principle naval harbor and sink one of your most powerful ships with a spread of torpedoes… it doesn;t matter if - on paper - the Royal navy was more powerful.
The British Navy was a sitting duck to aircraft, just like most ships of the era. The Germans had better tactical bombers like the Stuka and would have sank the Brits had they tried an intercept. Moreover the main issue cited for cancellation of Sea Lion was insufficient landing craft and the presence of the RAF. With the Royal Airforce gone as had been planned the German airforce could annihilate the British warships with impunity and that would be that.

TL;DR: any way you look at it Britain would have been strangled without US aid. The German submarines only got better over the war and without US help and their destroyers (including 50 given in the first lend-lease delivery), Britain would have sunk like the top-heavy trinket it was. Surface Navy dominance does not equal marine superiority.

That's the problem though. the V2 cost could buy Germany dozens of airplanes for the war effort, which would have a generally higher effect than 1 rocket. Moreover the V-1's interceptability was a good thing for the Germans since it meant that Britain wasted fuel and ammunition trying to hit a small target with little actual ability to do so without having it crash and still blow up/destroy something on the ground.

Actually no, aircraft is actually very useful for anti-sub operations. In the old days of wwi they were used to force the sub to submerge making it rely on sonar. Later in wwii they had sonobouys that can be dropped anywhere out at sea to detect them, nowhere is really safe for subs. They even had there own depth charges on planes to destroy the subs. They even had homing torpedos dropped from the air in wwii. The best bet for subs to take down a carrier nowadays with improved capabilities that those aircraft had was to sit in front of the carriers path, turn off their engines and be a dead fish in the water, hope that the two subs under the ship doesn't kill you when you release the torpedos that may or may not hit due to the use of decoy noise makers and Ille you don't die. Subs are very useful for finding indefended supply routes, they are very slow so its important to break off engagment with transport aille as soon as you spot a destroyer, pt boat or a patrol plane spots you. The only use I could really find for subs is for defensive operations where you can make them a dead fish in water near strategic locations.

I'm going to rail against you on that. Stukas are slow and easy to shoot down.

Oh, forgot to include pics.

Attached: Convoy_WS-12_en_route_to_Cape_Town,_1941.jpg (220x125 7.63 KB, 8.48K)

S, fuck them fascists

Nazi Germany was anti imperialist against liberalism tbh.

They did if they were planning to invade Britain. What happens when the Brits show up to sink the invasion force? U-boats couldn’t stand up to the British fleet, which is why they spend most of the war doing hit and run attacks on poorly armed merchant shipping instead of taking on battleships and cruisers.
Picking off a few convoy escorts is not the same thing as taking on the fleet when it shows up in force to sink your invasion.
Again, that was a raid, by definition a small scale hit and run attack relying on infiltration. Ffs just look at the kill ratios. Across the entire battle of the Atlantic the Germans lost nearly 800 submarines while the Allies (not just the British) lost under 200 warships. I don’t know if the Luftwaffe could have changed this, but in terms of the sea power alone the British were way ahead of the Germans, who could only fight back by avoiding direct confrontation. Their reliance on submarines was a sign of their weakness at sea, not their strength.

S

Gotta stop you there. Battleships and cruisers aren't really equipped to take on subs.
The domination of the Luftwaffe at sea would definitely tip the scales in favour of the uboats.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_200_Condor

Seething commies

yes. Carriers however are not. I only have to cite that incident when a Chinese submarine popped up in the middle of a US carrier fleet as an example. During WW-2 subamrines were at even more of an advantage since SONAR was primitive and nigh non-existant and search lights aren't much of a deterrent. Depth-charges are only effective at close range and if they can't fund the submarine are useless. Moreover as I mentioned the intent of the Germans was to crush the RAF and thus eliminate aircraft as a factor in the war. Hell Britain couldn't even afford to have its carriers at home since it was trying to defend from Japan.
Your citation is talking about 1943-1945. We're talking about 1940-1943, when the German Navy was strangling Britain.
Late in the war, yeah. Back in the beginning they were some of the fastest bombers out there and their dive bombing was quite accurate, definitely enough to get around the antiquated AAA used at the time.
Sonobouys were far later into the war when the German navy had already long since ran out of resources.

TL;DR: The point is that until America joined the war the Brits had little to go on to stop the Nazi blockade, EVEN if their surface navy had been able to deter landing attempts. The British Navy, until 1943 was essentially unable to counter submarines properly and suffered severe losses because of that, losing many expensive war-ships in the process.

Point 1 is covered by so moving on
Ever heard of wearing the enemy down? Or an army marches on its stomach? By taking out convoys and their isolated escorts the Germans denied Britain critical resources and slowly whittled away at their surface navy. Without the literal flood of US shipping the Germans would have worn Britain down within a year or so.
An example. And that raid was not a one off thing since submarines sank battleships several times over WW-2.
Majority of losses was 1943 and onward and almost entirely goes to maratime aviation as pointed out
The Germans also produced more submarines than there were warships in the British Navy.
MY point remains, in 1941, had the Germans finished off the RAF they could have easily annihilated the British Navy. Even letting the RAF go they could simply encircle Britain and let their cheaper, mass-produced U-Boats cut-off Britain from supplies. PERIOD. without the US flooding the sea routes with hundreds of ships the Germans would have starved the Brits into surrender.
Big warships like battleships were shown to be largely more costly than they were worth. More submarines could be made for the same price and would have more attacking power over-all.

well loosing supply lines as an island means you lost the war

You people do know that National Soycialism puts the people first right also fascism is different from National Soycialism (fascism is where the people serve the state National Soycialism is where the state serves the people)Yes theirs is no "equality" (Just like the ussr at the time)Hitler did not hate stalin he only feared the jews from invading all of europe the jews are responsible for the mass genocide of russians (I know not 100 million russians dead to the jews but still)The jews wanted to kill off all the smart russians then all of the non jews and invade all of europe.Hitler did not know stalin stopped this from happening by putting all of the jews in prison.(Fun fact the Tanakh jewish bible says we are sheep and the jews are the shepherds)(Also I only see communism as National Soycialism but killing off the rich people instead of stopping them from fucking over the poor like what National Soycialism does by stopping banks and business's from fucking over the people)Also pls no ban

Awful post.

How so I know it says "National Soycialism"But that is because it auto corrects to that because how /lefty pol/ is made

Keep repeating that to yourself as many times as it takes. Capitalism, but only for the "organic community/Volk" is still beholden to all the laws and critiques of capitalism. Creating some essentialist boogeyman so that you can hold your chest high and vain as you face your """enemy""" doesn't mean your little pipe dream becomes reality

I do like how killing all of the captalists does work if you look at the ussr it was great same as nazi germany.To me restricting the captalists is better then killing them tho.I still wonder why do communists think we are controlled by captalists?The only ones that are controlled are the alt right skin heads and kkk niggers

HA I just realized what you are saying sorry its late.Yes captalism for the volk!BUT as long as it does not hurt the volk of the nation by giving them poor wages long hours poor conditions also promoting degenerate things if A business does this they will be shut down!

What you are promoting if close but captalism is cut out completely so yes a type of communist country that follows both the NutSac ideal and communist ideal would theoretically work better then both

Because historically every NutSac movement has been. Hitler's entire rise to power was backed by multiple international corporations and capitalist governments.

Attached: f1367ef7f8d2309786219f6ab92ab13a29cf07de.jpg (3256x2808 815.14 KB, 2.54M)

Hmm privatizing everything would make the captalists more happey because they would be getting more money out of it and only would have to pay some amount to keep their works happy

Except the workers had their wages cut, taxes raised and standards of living lowered, while 1% increased their wealth by 50%.

Attached: naziconomics.png (640x487 76.29 KB, 103.84K)

The nazis literally had captured one of the Rothschild barons, but under the order of Himmler, first moved him to a luxury hotel and then released him.

I have heard about this what A shame.Well the bankers would have declared war on Germany like they ended up doing.