Why were the Nazi's such embarrassing failures, Jow Forums?

Why were the Nazi's such embarrassing failures, Jow Forums?

Attached: down in the dumps.jpg (236x299, 18K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=E8raDPASvq0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Because they were G*rmoids

shit tanks

Outnumbered and low on fuel.

Two superpowers and most of west europe verses one country probably one thirtieth of their collective size
You should be asking how come it them so long to win.

They stopped this faggot from taking the West.

Attached: FDR_Stalin.jpg (858x755, 368K)

>fighting a war on 2 fronts
LOL

germans of folklore slayed beasts, explored new worlds and climbed the highest peaks.
germans of that time slayed drinks at the bar and explored trying to climb the stairs.

Germans had the best tanks, it was the American artillery that one the war

>one

It was definitely not your intelligence

they were too proud and thought they were above god so he humbled them with death and rape

1945, you are alone against 20 niggers, what will you do?

2000 you are bound and get castrated, what will you do?

There have to pass time and down of america, so we can stand up again

Based.

Only a retard picks a fight he can't win.

No secret that Germany always failed to become what the other big major colonial players were (France, Spain, UK etc)

>implying he picked the fight
You sound like the same people who hung it all around germany's neck in WW1. Takes two to fight, mate.

>Country of 80 million takes on practically the entire world from 1941 onwards
Also Franz Halder was the only reason Operation Barbarossa failed.

German tanks are good in a 1v1 vacuum. In reality, they were produced at low numbers and were prone to mechanical issues because of their complexity. No, a Sherman could not take down a Tiger in a 1v1, but it was drastically more useful as a tank because it was reliable and easy to produce. The Germans would have been better off with something like a Sherman. In WW2, it often was quantity over quality.

Idk they killed a lot of Russians. Like 20million I think

He should have listened to the generals and try to get America in the axis.

>thinking that tanks alone decide a war
Yea fuck all the doctrines and logistics muh tiger

Huh?

I often wondered about this question. I think the precise point was when Hitler told the military to turn a hard right towards Stalingrad instead of taking Moscow.

He did this because the city shared Stalins name. He could have crippled Russia by taking the capital and he didn't do it. If he would have stopped there and shored up his taken territory, he could have sued for peace and kept most of Europe. He would have had his liebenstraum.

Attached: hmm face.png (500x500, 84K)

Because Hitler wasnt a good General nor a good tank designer

...

>uses an apostrophe to make a noun plural
>accuses others of being embarrassing

Two front war with several catastrophic strategic errors.

They awakened the Eternal Anglo

Autism

Attached: serveimage.jpg (650x358, 62K)

>Franz Halder
Wrong. Operation Barbarossa failed when Baron von Wolff was defeated.

>Operation Barbarossa happens
>We'll show these commie scum the power of german war machine
>Mein Fuhrer, the Soviets appear to have over 35 thousand tanks and keep producing more
>Their tanks are also better than ours
>Fuck

youtube.com/watch?v=E8raDPASvq0
So weird to hear Hitler not autistically screaming

> They didn't have a single four engine bomber
> We had a four engine bomber, we produced 40,000 if them
> The German Navy had no aircraft carriers nor a strategic bombing fleet
> We had 27 carriers on order that were built within 2 years and built 151 light escort vessels
> Before the war, the United States produced a little more than half of the world’s oil; Axis leaders should have known this would be a decisive factor in a mechanized conflict involving tanks, planes, and other vehicles.
Good little videos these, interesting stuff.

Attached: VictorDavisHanson.jpg (258x195, 7K)