You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
1
HimmlerWasRight88 on scored.co
1 year ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)1 child
Italy contribution was not negligible at all. In fact, there were other axis powers that contributed: Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, etc.
With that out of the way, you make some good points but things are not as easy as you present them.
I like to think that Hitler wanted the Aryan race to win, rather than Germany to win. And this is why he didn't bomb Dunkirk, and didn't use chemical weapons, and didn't commit the holocaust. Because if he did, and still lost, then National Socialism would have gone forever.
Nobody would be a National Socialist today if Hitler gassed London.
If he killed all the kikes that he put his hands on, and still lost the war, then the Jewish power would still be controlling the war and very few people today would be National Socialists. I believe most of us went through the journey of discovering that the holocaust didn't happen, and I don't think most of us would have continued the journey if we found it to be real.
I strongly believe that Hitler predicted this.
Germany did do mistakes. Let me try to think of some.
1) Not declaring total war until 1943 when it was too late it's the biggest blunder. Total war means dedicating all the resources of society towards the war effort, which incredibly he didn't do.
2) Improving the alliance with Mussolini; if Germany helped Italy to industrialize, and perhaps gave them some good generals and military training, Italy would have been formidable. Italy had a good fleet, lots of people, and colonies to exploit. Libya has oil which would have won them WWII if they knew about it and could exploit it in time. If the Axis was able to control the Mediterranean, they would have won. He should have also highlighted the danger of the communists to Mussolini and convinced him to get rid of them and seize power. If you think Hitler was too nice, Mussolini was fucking Santa Claus.
3) Historians are split on whether he did well in not getting Moscow when he had the chance, instead going after land and resources. Would the Bolsheviks had fallen if Moscow fell? No one knows.
>Improving the alliance with Mussolini; if Germany helped Italy to industrialize, and perhaps gave them some good generals and military training, Italy would have been formidable.
This is a very good point, but I'll chime in and say that Italy itself had a major issue that was one of *Mussolinis* blunders.
Incompetent royalists in position of power. The Italian monarchy was a corrupt and freemason shitshow. Mussolini put too much faith in the Italian monarchy, when the Italian monarchy was rotten to the core to begin with. "Bolsheviking" the house of savoy would have been 100% excusable because the house of savoy was made up of evil traitors. And most of the royal general staff and admiralty were incompetent morons who got their positions by good relationships with the monarchy and not by merit. And literally all of them, without fail, were traitors and abandoned Mussolini in 1943. Only the fascist officers stayed by him, particularly Graziani. The poor performance of the Italian military in its leadership ranks was, honestly, quite possibly legitimate sabatoge by a zionist dynasty
Mussolini should have removed the house of savoy entirely, and purged the entire upper echelon of the military and replaced them with fascist generals rather than royalist ones. Italy should have been the Italian Social Republic already in 1922 instead of 1943. That dynasty needed to *go*. I understand why he kept it as an appeal to Italian tradition, but it hampered everything that mussolini tried to do and, as I already said, it was an evil dynasty. The communists, while they should have been purged as you said, were really a lot less of a hindrance to mussolini when he was in power than the house of savoy.
Plus what you already said.
If you combined those 2 solutions, Italy would have been a powerhouse on the same (or close to it) level as Germany
Edit:
>Historians are split on whether he did well in not getting Moscow when he had the chance, instead going after land and resources. Would the Bolsheviks had fallen if Moscow fell? No one knows.
Land and resources was the right option. The USSR was not going to fall if it didn't have Moscow. There were way more places in the soviet union that the government could have operated out of, and the soviets were absolutely hell bent on *not* surrendering, and they would have a German army with no resources to deal with, so they wouldn't have ever stopped and the war probably would have been won faster by the ussr than it actually was (because the German army would be logistically *fucked* if they bumrushed Moscow). There was no easy way to deal with the giant soviet union, and with the western allies being a part of the war on the western front, and japan being preoccupied with the US, it was not possible to win regardless of what they did, but taking land and resources was the best option possible at the time. Without the western allies though, Germany could have won, but still would probably do best to get a steady supply of resources because it's still a huge undertaking to go through with no matter what
With that out of the way, you make some good points but things are not as easy as you present them.
I like to think that Hitler wanted the Aryan race to win, rather than Germany to win. And this is why he didn't bomb Dunkirk, and didn't use chemical weapons, and didn't commit the holocaust. Because if he did, and still lost, then National Socialism would have gone forever.
Nobody would be a National Socialist today if Hitler gassed London.
If he killed all the kikes that he put his hands on, and still lost the war, then the Jewish power would still be controlling the war and very few people today would be National Socialists. I believe most of us went through the journey of discovering that the holocaust didn't happen, and I don't think most of us would have continued the journey if we found it to be real.
I strongly believe that Hitler predicted this.
Germany did do mistakes. Let me try to think of some.
1) Not declaring total war until 1943 when it was too late it's the biggest blunder. Total war means dedicating all the resources of society towards the war effort, which incredibly he didn't do.
2) Improving the alliance with Mussolini; if Germany helped Italy to industrialize, and perhaps gave them some good generals and military training, Italy would have been formidable. Italy had a good fleet, lots of people, and colonies to exploit. Libya has oil which would have won them WWII if they knew about it and could exploit it in time. If the Axis was able to control the Mediterranean, they would have won. He should have also highlighted the danger of the communists to Mussolini and convinced him to get rid of them and seize power. If you think Hitler was too nice, Mussolini was fucking Santa Claus.
3) Historians are split on whether he did well in not getting Moscow when he had the chance, instead going after land and resources. Would the Bolsheviks had fallen if Moscow fell? No one knows.
This is a very good point, but I'll chime in and say that Italy itself had a major issue that was one of *Mussolinis* blunders.
Incompetent royalists in position of power. The Italian monarchy was a corrupt and freemason shitshow. Mussolini put too much faith in the Italian monarchy, when the Italian monarchy was rotten to the core to begin with. "Bolsheviking" the house of savoy would have been 100% excusable because the house of savoy was made up of evil traitors. And most of the royal general staff and admiralty were incompetent morons who got their positions by good relationships with the monarchy and not by merit. And literally all of them, without fail, were traitors and abandoned Mussolini in 1943. Only the fascist officers stayed by him, particularly Graziani. The poor performance of the Italian military in its leadership ranks was, honestly, quite possibly legitimate sabatoge by a zionist dynasty
Mussolini should have removed the house of savoy entirely, and purged the entire upper echelon of the military and replaced them with fascist generals rather than royalist ones. Italy should have been the Italian Social Republic already in 1922 instead of 1943. That dynasty needed to *go*. I understand why he kept it as an appeal to Italian tradition, but it hampered everything that mussolini tried to do and, as I already said, it was an evil dynasty. The communists, while they should have been purged as you said, were really a lot less of a hindrance to mussolini when he was in power than the house of savoy.
Plus what you already said.
If you combined those 2 solutions, Italy would have been a powerhouse on the same (or close to it) level as Germany
Edit:
>Historians are split on whether he did well in not getting Moscow when he had the chance, instead going after land and resources. Would the Bolsheviks had fallen if Moscow fell? No one knows.
Land and resources was the right option. The USSR was not going to fall if it didn't have Moscow. There were way more places in the soviet union that the government could have operated out of, and the soviets were absolutely hell bent on *not* surrendering, and they would have a German army with no resources to deal with, so they wouldn't have ever stopped and the war probably would have been won faster by the ussr than it actually was (because the German army would be logistically *fucked* if they bumrushed Moscow). There was no easy way to deal with the giant soviet union, and with the western allies being a part of the war on the western front, and japan being preoccupied with the US, it was not possible to win regardless of what they did, but taking land and resources was the best option possible at the time. Without the western allies though, Germany could have won, but still would probably do best to get a steady supply of resources because it's still a huge undertaking to go through with no matter what