And that is why Nazis are the biggest losers in History.
Not only did they claim their army was the best, but their people were also the best. So losing after a single war proves their army wasn’t the strongest and their people weren’t the best.
They also got beaten by a combination of different countries who allow anyone to join.
Meaning, the Nazis were beaten by diversity and inclusivity.
The Confederates, for the non-Americans, take challenge to that.
They were the opposing force during the American Civil War, trying to keep slavery. Their reign was so short, even a can of beans last longer than they did.
And yet that doesn’t stop chucklefucks in the American South proudly showing their Confederate flag, all because America is too chicken shit to call them losers.
They lost WW1, too.
They weren’t nazis in ww1
No, but they were the same country.
What war had the nazi zombies?
Anon doubts WW2 Germany
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.
Yes, they were beaten by a group of different people who let anyone join.
Nazis were literally defeated by diversity and inclusivity.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
The USSR was only in the fight thanks to lend lease and even Stalin admitted as much.
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.
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.
wasn’t even the last one standing on the losing side either. Japanese people are better than the master race?
There’s some Nazi “history” about how the Japanese were some long lost Aryan tribe. Being post-truth is flexible that way.
Well, how much hentai did the nazis produce? Smh
Also did you know Hitler was a tweaker?
U mean a druggy?
Everyone used to consume inorbitant amounts of hard drugs! Thats the charm of the time!
Or like are you to implying the narrative of nazi generals? That the war would have been won tups if Hitler didn’t meddle? ‘Cause thats also not true! The war rememtos are complete lies meant to convince nato to hire them as advisers, which they would have anyways. If things were to shit the fan with the ussr then they wanted the german militia…
Used to?
Won the war? Nah. Been much more of a pain in the ass for the allies to win? Probably
Alternatively, those generals saw how badly things were going by late 1943/early 1944 and would push for a negotiated surrender. While those generals definitely did put all the blame on Hitler in their post-war memoirs to cover their own failures, Hitler was certainly to blame for continuing to fight until the Reds were almost literally knocking on his bunker door.
Also very possible. At the end of the day it’s all speculation
deleted by creator
They didn’t?
Apparently it was too early in the morning for me or I need new glasses.
What is this Heart symbol that I see?
Tooltip says “1 Point”.
New feature?Hearts = upvotes - downvotes, yeah Idk know who would find that useful. Some socials do that.
I see, so I would assume that if a server calculates it, it sends it to others, which then send it to clients in the metadata.
I think this is a client side thing at least it makes more sense to me.
And the fact that only some clients have that may prove it right.
Ok, I just experimented a bit and seems like that’s the case.
I probably just didn’t look closely at enough comments with both, upvotes and downvotes until now.
Are you using an app? Desktop doesn’t have this.
Web UI. (I’m actually looking around for what app to choose)
It is not on all comments, only 2-3. I saw it the first time on the comment that started this thread.
