563
Anon doubts WW2 Germany (sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] thisisbutaname@discuss.tchncs.de 79 points 13 hours ago

Well, not to defend the nazis or anything, but they did manage to make considerable amounts of damage and it took multiple great powers working together to beat them back.

[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 7 points 6 hours ago

Yes, they were beaten by a group of different people who let anyone join.

Nazis were literally defeated by diversity and inclusivity.

[-] TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world 50 points 10 hours ago

That's how Fascists work though. They pick fights with bigger and bigger opponents -- because they're invulnerable, you see -- until they lose. Their economy was absolutely insane, and required flat out pillaging their neighbours. Eventually your neighbours are too big to pillage.

[-] HK65@sopuli.xyz 26 points 10 hours ago

Isn't that not just an imperialistic trait, not necessarily a fascistic one? Franco's Spain didn't collapse, while it was still very much fascistic.

All the while, this trait is very much applicable to the Roman, Ottoman, Soviet or US empires.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 13 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Historians debate just how fascist Franco was. Hell, Orwell wasn't even quite sure, and he was very open about the fact that he went to Spain to kill a fascist.

Edit: a choice passage out of Homage to Catalonia, emphasis added:

But there were several points that escaped general notice. To begin with, Franco was not strictly comparable with Hitler or Mussolini. His rising was a military mutiny backed up by the aristocracy and the Church, and in the main, especially at the beginning, it was an attempt not so much to impose Fascism as to restore feudalism. This meant that Franco had against him not only the working class but also various sections of the liberal bourgeoisie—the very people who are the supporters of Fascism when it appears in a more modern form. More important than this was the fact that the Spanish working class did not, as we might conceivably do in England, resist Franco in the name of 'democracy' and the status quo; their resistance was accompanied by—one might almost say it consisted of—a definite revolutionary outbreak. Land was seized by the peasants; many factories and most of the transport were seized by the trade unions; churches were wrecked and the priests driven out or killed. The Daily Mail, amid the cheers of the Catholic clergy, was able to represent Franco as a patriot delivering his country from hordes of fiendish 'Reds'.

And as a side note, the Daily Mail has been terrible for a long, long time.

[-] tibi@lemmy.world 10 points 10 hours ago

Also, they successfully occupied most of the countries in western and central Europe. It's only when they tried to expand into Russia that the war started. If they didn't pick a fight with the russians, the Third Reich would have lasted much longer.

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 15 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

I won’t say Finland or Thailand were great powers but Japan had a decent showing so it’s not like they were alone

Though it really only took USSR to beat Germany

[-] Cypher@lemmy.world 6 points 6 hours ago

The USSR was only in the fight thanks to lend lease and even Stalin admitted as much.

[-] 1SimpleTailor@startrek.website 8 points 4 hours ago

Bingo. American industry, British intelligence, and Russian Blood won the war in Europe. It was always a combined effort, and anyone claiming one power could have won alone is talking nonsense.

With American supplies, the USSR might have been able to defeat Germany without the Allies sending ground forces into Europe. However, there’s no way the Red Army could have defeated both Germany and Japan alone. The United States was the major force in the Pacific theater.

[-] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

I think a major part of getting "beat" is they fought the USSR in the east and simultaneously the USA and UK in the west. I mean the war against Stalin wasn't going super smoothy. But it went on since 1941 already. And it really went south for the nazis when the USA joined WW2.

[-] Wanderer@lemm.ee 1 points 16 minutes ago

Things would have gone smoother for them if the British didn't slow them down with Yugoslavia.

Good chance they would have captured Moscow and Stalin.

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Outside of industry the US didn’t impact much

The Western Front was going to be won without them due to German troop and supply limitations

The US war effort was the Pacific and preventing the USSR from taking all of Germany (Allies made it in time)

[-] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 10 hours ago

They won many wars in a row without losing. Then they just overdid it a lil bit at the end and got bonked. They couldve had a huge empire if they just stopped a bit earlier.

this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
563 points (98.3% liked)

Greentext

4415 readers
1088 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS