"The glorious German Reich, the reign that will last a thousand years..."
Me staring at the "glorious empire" that didn't even last 0.2% of that.

DizzyYellow said:

"The glorious German Reich, the reign that will last a thousand years..."
Me staring at the "glorious empire" that didn't even last 0.2% of that.

I think you're missing perhaps some of the extenuating circumstances of the situation....fighting the USA, Soviet Union, and Britain at the same time would be an insurmountable task even for the modern United States. Even notwithstanding that fact, Nazi Germany came closer to victory than our pride allows us to admit. Instead of focusing on the war that prematurely ended them, I think it's more useful to analyze the situation prior to and following the rise of Nazi Germany, and if you do that I think there are numerous reasons to believe the National Socialists of Germany would have led a very successful state that (at the very least) would have lasted into the 21st century and beyond. Weimar Germany was poorer than Venezuela is today, and in the span of a few years Hitler made it into a world superpower.
:shrug:

Germany never had a chance. If you noticed, the countries they invaded were either small and weak or unprepared. While the Axis had been planning the war for years (or in Japan's case, engaing in it), the Allies had to still mobilize their troops. If you'll also notice, once the major nations began mobilizing, Germany began losing fairly quickly and the facade of the "unstoppable" German army fell. Don't get me wrong though, the Germans still had great officers and many major scientific advancements, but they were no match for the overwhelmingly superior Allied forces at their maximum potential.

DizzyYellow said:

"The glorious German Reich, the reign that will last a thousand years..."
Me staring at the "glorious empire" that didn't even last 0.2% of that.

The HRE, German Empire, Hanseatic League & Teutonic Order were cooler anyways.

I love bleaching asian sluts as much as the next white guy.

But I won't ever understand why these idiots always cheer on the losing side.
Confederacy, Nazis. Are they addicted to being stomped?

Not quite the "superior" attitude to me lol

Nerds

Whitemale02 said:

Germany never had a chance. etc....

The countries I listed were neither small, weak, nor unprepared. The Germans had probably the best army of their day, and it took the combined might of all the allies to stop it. I wouldn't say Germany lost "fairly quickly", considering the war was six years long, a much greater period of time than WW1. Overall, there's no point in debating but I think it's foolish to say the Germans were weak or pathetic or didn't know how to fight or run an effective state.

Nintendoss said:

The countries I listed were neither small, weak, nor unprepared. The Germans had probably the best army of their day, and it took the combined might of all the allies to stop it. I wouldn't say Germany lost "fairly quickly", considering the war was six years long, a much greater period of time than WW1. Overall, there's no point in debating but I think it's foolish to say the Germans were weak or pathetic or didn't know how to fight or run an effective state.

By small and weak, I was referring to countries such as Denmark, Greece, and Luxembourg. However, undoubtedly the United States and Britain WERE unprepared (the Soviet Union was a militaristic dictatorship, so they naturally were prepared, though not mobilized). While the United States did prepare for a draft during a time of peace, their naval and air power was greatly reduced by the surprise attack by the Japanese. Additionally, the US and Britain both were still in a depression/recession, while Germany was mostly recovering. Most importantly, it should be noted the Allies did not expect the Germans to have such a large military because they quite literally put restrictions upon it in the Treaty of Versailles. As such, the ability for the Allies to build and mobilize an army so fast showcases their evident superiorty. Additionally, the war was only 2 years longer than WW1, which is not a "much greater" time period, at least from a historical perspective. Plus, I'd argue that the German's system of government was a flaw, and they did not know how to run an effective state. I believe this is most clearly displayed in the invasion of D-Day. While the Germans could have sent reinforcements and stopped the Allied invasion, they were unable to do so because Hitler was SLEEPING. Yes, in the middle of a war, after having lost an insane amount of territoy in Africa, and having two massive superpowers threatening to surround you from three angles (southern Italy, west France, and all of eastern Europe), sleeping is obviously reasonable. Lastly, the Germans were always bound to fail just by sheer numbers alone. With all the men fighting on the fronts, they could not continue to increase their population enough to refill their ranks. As such, they relied more and more upon both younger and older German citizens to fight in a war of numbers where they were heavily outnumbered. Though, as I said in my previous statement, I do agree they had some of the best technology of the time, and some of the best commanders not only in WW2, but in all of history.

Nintendoss said:

I think you're missing perhaps some of the extenuating circumstances of the situation....fighting the USA, Soviet Union, and Britain at the same time would be an insurmountable task even for the modern United States.

But they really didn't have to be at war with all of them in the first place. The reason the US engaged in any actual fighting with the Germans was because of pearl harbour, and the nazis really did not need the alliance with Japan. Stalin actually wanteed closer relations with them, and tried to negotiate an alliance that would go beyong molotov ribbentrop. The nazis just conducted ideological foreign policy, rather than pragmatic foreign policy, which was their downfall.

I prefer the US aesthetic better.

Nintendoss said:

The countries I listed were neither small, weak, nor unprepared. The Germans had probably the best army of their day, and it took the combined might of all the allies to stop it. I wouldn't say Germany lost "fairly quickly", considering the war was six years long, a much greater period of time than WW1. Overall, there's no point in debating but I think it's foolish to say the Germans were weak or pathetic or didn't know how to fight or run an effective state.

Though this site is, well, what it is, I do appreciate this debate here. For me to read this back and forth here and now has been refreshing. For my mind to be in the throes of lust and quickly changed to a consideration of intellect by an honestly civilly handled debate, it feels like a gift. Like a boon.
May you all be well :)