I just feel like it might be the latter, because the idea that Germany only achieved limited success due to surprise, amphetamines, and Allied incompetence kind of takes away from the fact that the Soviets spent so much effort and so many lives in beating them back halfway to Berlin before the Allies even invaded on the Western front. With the idea that the German army was somehow more competent, professional, whatever, over the French/British/Etc, that adds to the achievement of the Soviets in blunting and then turning back their advance. But the criticisms of the Nazi army, idk, it seems to take away from all of that? Like "lol whatever they were all hopped up on adderall and would have been stopped anyway." idk y'all it just seems weird. I don't know how to take it.
edit: like say it's boxing and you got The Best Boxer and they're beaten by someone else, well, that'd make the latter the Boxer who beat The Best Boxer, but then people come out saying actually they weren't that great etc etc, it detracts from both of them, not just one, idk
In fact, if Stalin had invaded Germany in 1937, the whole of WWII could have been prevented.
Would the Soviets invading Germany not simply have started World War 2 early with everyone ganging up on the communists?
And their greatest mistake? Vastly underestimating the Soviet Union
The Soviets hid their strength. Why? Nobody knows. If the Germans had known their true strength they would have had second thoughts, and might have continued the alliance instead of sneak attacking their only friend in the world. In the only recording we have of Hitler using his normal speaking voice, he talks about the real size of the Red Army being double what the Abwehr estimated.
They send their factory workers to the frontline as soldiers, and had to constantly rotate them back to the homefront for industrial production.
Soviets used women but the Germans refused to do so. In fact, Germany ran on a peacetime economy until after Stalingrad. Theaters were open, the bourgeois employed domestic servants, it wasn't a 100% push for victory. Afterwards they did, but it was too little too late. The Soviet strategy of using women as workers and soldiers paid great dividends.
if Stalin had not been purging people left and right in the late 1930s, Germany would not have stood a chance at all
If Stalin had not purged them all, they would have overthrown him.
if Stalin had invaded Germany in 1937, the whole of WWII could have been prevented.
This is true. However all of Western capitalism would have united to ally with Germany and start a different WWII.
saved the Soviet Union, and the world from fascism.
A common misconception, fanned by the Allies, was that goal was to conquer the entire world. In fact the German plan was to conquer the food and oil producing regions of the Soviet Union and then stop. But it's no surprise why the Allies wanted to overstate the threat, it was useful to motivate their populations. Who today even remembers that they wanted to ally with Britain, and considered the war against them a great mistake?
Operation Bagration in the summer of 1944 would see the Red Army executing the perfected art of Deep Battle
More like Operation Bagratio'd lmao gottem
:pit::pigmask-parodied: :t34::t34::t34::t34::t34::t34::t34::t34::t34::t34::t34:
There was some study that showed that on average it took fewer Germans to take a position from the allies than vise versa. They were quite good on the tactical level but completely fucked strategically.
I mentioned this in another thread today, but WWII really was an ideological battle between communism and fascism
I am not sure how the Japanese going after the US fits this narrative though. Certainly I agree with regards to the European theater, a basic look at the interwar period and the buildup settles that argument, but the pacific war?
WW2 would be different if Japan decided to just stick with fucking up China and SEA while leaving the US alone. It would have been even worse if they decided to fight the USSR instead.
I don't disagree with or wish to argue against any of this but like I literally saw people on here saying stuff about how they "only" defeated the French because amphetamines let them work faster than expected in penetrating the Ardennes, etc. I'm not trying to justify that arguement, just saying I saw it and it seems kinda sus to me
It's nothing but a cope.
Weird that the collapse of France still stings 80 years later.
It can be both depending on context.
Nazi German fucks stomped several major countries and pushed The Soviets back to Stalingrad. They were clearly competent enough. But they also had a massive, long-running industrial base the element of surprise vs. powers to the West, which aren't really being amazingly tactical, efficient, or technologically advanced, and that's a place where they're way overrated. Especially on efficiency, since they were constantly burning out their workers because they were, you know, fascists.
The Soviets were far more impressive, with their rapid industrialization, moving industry to the Urals at incredible speed in anticipation of the Nazis rapidly advancing over the plains, and creative and effective strategies and tactics. My favorite is their use of decoys and props to mislead Nazis on their buildups, which they used constantly to great effect. Just completely rocked the Nazis' tanks once they regrouped and German supply lines were weakened, especially the long campaign to isolate a large Nazi force in Stalingrad, which wasn't a small one-off but the culmination of a series of smart moves that left no good options for the fashies (:pit:).
This could only be anti-communist if folks acknowledged the role communists played in the war to begin with.
a lot of :reddit-logo: ww2 "enthusiasts" salivate over stereotypes of hyper efficiently organized nazis and say shit like "the nazis would have totally won if it wasnt a 2 front war"
bringing up incompetencies is mostly countering that
The whole "oh, that's why the Germans won! they used amphetamines!" narrative is just handwaving away their victories. Even today, it stings that they could have gotten beaten so badly. So they reach for a convenient excuse, and presto. None of that stain of defeat sticks to them. "The Germans cheated!" As if there is some sort of fairness in war.
I think this discussion is beside the point, just look at all the polls similar to this.
Nobody realy gives a shit whether Nazi Germany was competent or not IRL discourse(except the fringe neonazis etc obviously), everyone just thinks the US just showed up and "won" the war saving everyone.
As far as the propaganda is concerned the question is already settled.
I was under the impression that industrial wars are mostly a matter of industrial capacity and who fucks up the least. Like, it's not that the Germans or the Allies were overall incompetent, it's that there are many examples of them being incompetent, and in many cases that incompetence costing them battles.
For example, there are accounts of German tank crews having passed out on the side of the road due to amphetamine comedown, which has lead modern military scholars to speculate that if the French and British forces at Dunkirk had managed to reorganize and push back they would have been able to maintain a foothold. However, we won't know that ever because the French and the British command were too incompetent to do so. I suspect it probably wouldn't have mattered, because there are no accounts of entire battle groups being out of commission, but it's an interesting thought experiment at least.
just pull the bait and switch
if they were incompetent it just means that the allies didn't achieve anything
Right? That's what I keep thinking the point of this sort of messaging is. But obviously I don't want to praise the fascists even obliquely, especially when I wouldn't call myself an expert on WWII
Both tbh,
I can’t think of how building huge ass super weapons was not a way for industrialists to cash in cheque from the states for research.
Bureaucracy is hell
