>>24961965
He identifies the central problem of WWI being that Germany should have joined the Allied Powers and dogpiled Austria-Hungary to reclaim the ethnic German regions. Similarly he lays out a plan of resource-interdependent alliances moving forward which makes perfect sense if one assumes that Brits with an interest in Britain‘s long term wellbeing oust the puppets of international finance from their government eventually (whoops.)

>>24961965
wwii was the communist war against europe, hitler was right to try to save prussian lands in poland and bohemia from the international communist conspiracy

>>24961976
>it makes sense if you assume Britain wont act on the same foreign policy goals its strived for for its entire existence

wow very cool

>>24961976
right but what about the chapter where talks about how Germany needs to take over half of Europe? you seem to be leaving that one out

>>24961978
but he didnt want just prussian lands, he actually mocks people who only want "the old borders back". he wanted at least half of Europe

File: MV5BNDkzOWJhYTctNDMxNC00Y(...).jpg (116 KB, 1337x918)

116 KB JPG

>>24961976
His master plan hinged on anglos NOT being anglos? What a gulla-bull. What a nin-cow-poop. What an im-bess-ill. What an ultra-maroon.

>>24961995
It hinges on that they WILL pursue those goals which is why his idea of German Empire is a continuous land region in the opposite direction, abandoning the struggle for Africa, checking France as a competitor, and later attempting to sweeten the deal with how much easier it would be for Britain to handle the Middle-East and India if the continental infrastructure to reach those areas were in the unilateral control of an ally state. The fact that Britain reversed its foreign policy goals and abandoned the empire postwar is a case in point of this.

>>24962023
are you high? everything about this bullshit is just so overtly and objectively wrong. literally just one overtly incorrect statement after another

creating a giant continental superpower is literally the singular thing that british foreign policy exists to oppose, whether its "in the opposite direction" or not. it doesn't matter.

they didnt "reverse" their foreign policy, that's something you just pulled out of your ass. maintain colonies in the middle east and india was never their #1 priority at any point. their #1 priority is preventing nay power int he continent from emerging which can potentially force a crossing of the channel, period. it always was. this is literally a per-requisite to maintaining their empire

it abandoned the empire post war because it was costing more than it was worth to maintain

>>24961965
East Prussia voted to be reunited with Germany and Poland refused, it's no different to what's happening with Russia, Ukraine and the Donbass.

Real question is - was sacrificing 90 million Europeans, all your empires, and European supremacy worth it so a fat, drunken, gambling addict could pay off his gambling debts?

>>24961965
>>what if we get more resources by invading our neighbours, starting another world war we already know from experience we cannot sustain?
They almost won, retard.

>>24962249
LOL

>>24962273
They did. They came close to starving Britain and were within 20 KM of the Kremlin. it's easy to look back and say "if the allies did everything this way there's no way the Nazis could have won" but the fact is you're outside the fog of war. For example, the Japanese debated invading the USSR and if they had of Stalin wouldn't have had the troops to hold off the German advance. Trying to make a firm conclusion based on the logic of counterfactuals is bad history but that's not to say you shouldn't acknowledge their existence if you actually want to understand the motivation and logic of historical actors as they were at the time.

they didnt take the kremlin for a reason. japan didnt invade for a reason.

your hypotheticals are completely meaningless

>>24962323
>they didnt take the kremlin for a reason
Because reinforcements from the east were able to hold off the German advance.
>japan didnt invade for a reason
They actively debated doing so and came close to doing it.
>your hypotheticals are completely meaningless
You're uneducated about the topic under discussion.

>>24962324
not an argument

>>24962326
Yeah it is. The Japanese debated invading the USSR and came close to doing so. Stalin brought troops from the east, they would have been tied down if the Japanese had decided securing Manchukuo by invading the USSR was necessary, and Barbarossa would likely have succeeded. None of this happened but at the time it was entirely up in the air.

Anyway, the main point is that looking back with hindsight and pretending the allies could play a perfect game is retarded. The Nazis came incredibly close to winning the war and idiots like you are the reason quotes like "the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history" exist.

>>24962333
>entire argument just pretends the united states does not exist
lole

>>24962519
First, if Barbarossa had of succeeded the war in Europe would have pretty much been over. Second, a significant portion of the US public didn't want to actively participate in a land war in Europe. Third, even after Pearl FDR was relieved Hitler declared war on the US because he hadn't been able to muster the political, let alone public, support for war in Europe. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Again, the main point isn't how Germany may have won the war but the fact that you aren't living in 1939--you're operating on a really shallow knowledge of the war and going off of hindsight. Even if you say the Nazis only had a 45% chance at success that still means they win the war 45 times out of 100 (and the odds were much better than that while Germany was starving England and within 20 clicks of the Kremlin).

>>24962562
lol youre seriously just throwing shit at the wall till it sticks. none of that stopped the US from being involved in the war IRL and wouldn't have stopped it in your headcanon timeline

>>24962582
>youre seriously just throwing shit at the wall till it sticks
You haven't made a single argument you complete and total retard.
>none of that stopped the US from being involved
Hindsight, moron.
>wouldn't have stopped it
Hindsight, moron.
>headcanon timeline
I haven't given a timeline and nothing I've written is headcanon, moron.

Holy shit you're stupid.

File: F64B6E86-8C3D-417A-93C2-8(...).png (98 KB, 1254x1787)

98 KB PNG

>>24961976
>Britain should have simply allowed the Nazis to conquer Europe
Lol

>>24962584
ive presented as much of an argument as you have though

>>24962584
you dont need hindsight to know the US would be getting involved kek

>>24962594
No, you haven't. I've pointed out several aspects of the war that you obviously weren't aware of and you haven't been able to counter them. Aside from that the main point has been you're using a very shallow understanding of the war to pretend its outcome was always written in stone.

It seems pretty obvious that you're a retard imaging everyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi and if you were capable of reflection, your retard adjacent IQ precludes you from such, you'd realize that's why you think you're right.

You're an idiot, anon.

>>24962597
You're an idiot.

>>24962318
capturing moscow would absolutely not have ended the war with the soviets though it 100% would have continued to be dragged the fuck on and the United states still would have showed up . the united states still would have continued supplying the UK

>>24962600
>cant keep himself from throwing a fit and using personal insults instead of argumentation
>hurf durf look how smart i am everyone!

I accept your concession

>>24962604
>capturing moscow would absolutely not have ended the war with the soviets though
Yes it would have.
>the United states still would have showed up
You keep making that assertion but your only argument is "it happened that way" without being able to acknowledge the detours that happened along the way. Hence: hindsight based on shallow knowledge of the war.
>the united states still would have continued supplying the UK
It's pretty obvious you don't know England was almost starved (they got lucky Germany made the mistake of building a surface fleet and didn't put that effort into more U-boats) and have no idea how the rationing system evolved and became successful.

You're an idiot arguing with imaginary Nazis on the internet. Seriously, anon: you're really dumb. If you actually hate Nazis you should become one because whichever cause you attach yourself to will be the weaker for it.

>>24962609
>crying about being called out for being retarded
>thinks declaring himself the victim of a big meanie means he's right
Lol. My concession is that you're an idiot. I'm glad you accept it.

>>24962618
>Yes it would have.

yea, sorry but that simply is not true and is straight up dumber than any statement anyone else has made in this thread and you are a complete clown.

first of all even in the worst case scenario where they lose moscow AND as a result lend lease is full on cancelled, the soviets production was still migrated eastward and was already outproducing the Germans and they still had a massive amount of manpower to draw from

secondly, Germany was already openly committing mass atrocities and Soviet intelligence already well aware that Germany was waging a war of anihilation and that surrender was never going to be an option

the idea that the war would have just ended because a city was taken, even one as important as moscow, is fucking FARCICAL, dude. idiots like you are the reason quotes like "the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history" exist. remember Napoleon throwing a fit because Russia refused to surrender after Moscow fell?
you seriously need to work on your attitude dude, you keep acting like this big brain arrogant know-it-all insulting everyone and telling everyone they are making "shallow assumptions with no knowledge of the war" while you yourself are building your entire fucking argument on one single assumption that is absolutely no where in the ball park of reality. this would be way less cringe if didn't act like Dunning-Kruger incarnate.


>You keep making that assertion but your only argument is "it happened that way"

I keep making that assertion because the united states government was straight up desperate to enter the war and actively searching for pretense. the fall of moscow would not have stopped that.

>>24962318
>if all this shit happened completely different than how it happened in real life, then Germany could have theoretically won!
>this means we can say germany was "close to winning" even theough they had no chance in hell of winning in real life

the entire premise of what you are arguing is complete nonsense

>>24961965
Reading his book makes you realise just how insane and stupid Hitler really is. In the first section he goes on and on, on how he watched his people and his country's failings (yet doesn't pick on the stupidity and faults of nationalism). Enjoys art, tries to define it to his standards (the really only enjoyable part), then the other sections is pride, politics, paranoia, and incoherent ramblings or just total, blatant lies.

>>24962640
>yea, sorry but that simply is not true
Sorry, but you have no way of actually knowing whether or not it would have won the war. There's evidence that Stalin was entertaining peace negotiations that would have ceded all of the land Germany had conquered.
>blah blah blah
Not interested. I realized I should have said "could have" but figured you'd have the decency not to sperg out about a slide. This is the first thing i've been wrong about inthis discussion, lol.
>I keep making that assertion because the united states government was straight up desperate to enter the war
You don't know if they would have been able to enter the war if Hitler had managed to starve England into submission. You don't know what would have happened if the Germans had managed to take Moscow.

Germany was close to winning WWII. Pretending it wasn't because you think you're owning Nazis on the internet is retarded. Again: the argument isn't how Germany could have won the war. The argument is that the outcome wasn't 100% predetermined even after the Germans undertook Barbarossa and especially not after the British had been chased back to their island.
>>24962653
>the entire premise of what you are arguing is complete nonsense
That's not my argument, retard. My argument is: 1) The outcome of the war wasn't predetermined; 2) Via appeal to the historical record one can see that Germany losing the war wasn't a sure thing; 3) You're a retard who is imaging he's arguing with a Nazi sympathizer.

Get it? Fuck you're dumb.

looking back on it now, it probably would have been highly preferable for germany to have taken over eastern europe

File: mapper.png (705 KB, 441x791)

705 KB PNG

Reminder that historians are the worst midwits of social sciences and humanities and that they should study economics, game theory and political science before doing anything more than gathering and publishing historical data, unless they collaborate with professionals of those fields to publish. And amateur historians are, for the same reason, among the worst communities of the internet. The kind of people that faps to brainrot maps with phonk music and trollge faces.

>>24961965
>a grain of sand moves in europe
>the anglo empties his bank into the mongoloid's ass

Don't be surprised if they bankrolled the original mongol invasions as well.

>>24962591

Mongoloids invaded several European Countries before the war began, and were bankrolled by the Anglo since the First World War (technically since the Napoleonic Wars; the "Crimean War" was an anomaly at best, likely a sham). Any "treaty" signed by Germany, or other European (i.e. non-Angloid, non-mongoloid) Countries was a treaty toward their own extermination at the hands of anglomongo.

>>24961965
yep

>>24962318
>They came close to starving Britain
Nope. Britain managed its food situation with its "Dig for Victory" program. Not only was there no starvation, there wasn't even malnutrition.
>and were within 20 KM of the Kremlin
Capturing a legacy imperial palace would not have defeated the Soviets. They had already railed their industries out of reach of the Germans. Are you saying Stalin couldn't have got on a train too?

>>24964048
>Nope
They did.
>Capturing a legacy imperial palace would not have defeated
The Soviets would have lost 75% of their industrial output capacity. The plan wasn't to capture Moscow but to encircle and destroy it.

>>24961965
That book looks way too thick. I expected it to be at max 200 pages about pure dribble.

>>24961965
good book

>>24962519
What do you mean? The US supported Hitler until 1945.

>>24962046
Britain during its height thought they could rule the world just by being British, and they were proud of it, "the sun never sets on the British Empire" and all that. They opposed German expansion because at the end of the day they hated Germany and needed an excuse to go to war again.

>>24962680
>hitler was insane and stupid because he only liked the art he liked and excused the flaws of the people he liked
this is your brain on "logic" btw

>>24966508
The British Empire lasted 400 years while your country still hasn't figured out how to use a toilet, Sukdeep.