Why can't German's celebrate his military successes

work the shaft a lil harder why don't ya
the molotov-ribbentrop pact wasn't en route to breaking before uncle adolf altered the deal

He had no choice retard, fuckin read a book

You lost half of your men trying to beat him and still would not have beaten him without our help. Be real.

i read 2 books

Attached: 1496797863409.jpg (386x250, 24K)

Let me guess. Did you studied the history by Hollywood movies and video games?

The one where he slaughtered your people like pigs.

because he was a retard and hilarious cuck

Attached: the cuckold.png (869x1520, 902K)

Only in this the Nazis were good. They knew how to kill civilians.

>yes comrade believe the (((soviet archives)))
Christ, we should have let Patton and friends liquidate your lot in '45.

It's strange Napoleon said some pretty "racist" things (I wish I wasn't on my phone and could post here) and re-established slavery in the French colonies but he'll probably be safe from the erasure other people who did those things suffer.

By that standard, Napoleon had no successes either.

He had a lot of successful victories. Germany had only one and it was victory against demoralized enemy who from the beginning did not want to fight.

I may say this today: If this wave of more than 20,000 tanks, hundreds of divisions, tens of thousands of artillery pieces, along with more than 10,000 airplanes had not been kept from being set into motion against Germany, Europe would have been lost. Several nations have been destined to prevent or parry this blow through the sacrifice of their blood. If Finland [for one] had not immediately decided, for the second time, to take up weapons then the comfortable bourgeois life of the other Nordic countries would quickly have been extinguished.

If the German Reich, with its soldiers and weapons, had not stood against this opponent, a storm would have burned over Europe that would have eliminated, once and for all time, and in all its intellectual paucity and traditional stupidity, the laughable British idea of the European balance of power. If the Slovaks, Hungarians and Romanians had not also acted to defend this European world, then the Bolshevik hordes would have poured over the Danube countries as did once the swarms of Attila's Huns, and [Soviet] Tatars and Mongols would [then], on the open country by the Ionian Sea, force a revision of the Treaty of Montreux [regarding the Dardanelles strait].

Attached: 1418554654343.jpg (516x640, 85K)

If Italy, Spain and Croatia had not sent their divisions, then a European defense front would not have arisen that proclaims the concept of a new Europe and thereby powerfully inspires all other nations as well. Because of this awareness of danger, volunteers have come from northern and western Europe: Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Flemish, Belgians and even French. They have all given the struggle of the allied forces of the Axis the character of a European crusade, in the truest sense of the word.

Germany's Declaration of War Against the United States
ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p389_Hitler.html

Attached: 1514122465229.png (425x640, 419K)

The French Army alone had more tanks, men and artillery than the Wehrmacht. Hitler encircled 4,000,000 Red Army troops within the first six months.

Attached: asiatic-head-of-armed-forces-2018.png (744x540, 738K)

Attached: pow.jpg (1035x1428, 269K)

Attached: pow2.jpg (736x548, 55K)

But the Bolsheviks anyway invaded Europe and didn't destroy one. Why?

Attached: pow3.jpg (736x1036, 102K)

stfu jew

I herewith repeat my prophecy: England will not only not be in a position to control Bolshevism but her development will unavoidably evolve more and more toward the symptoms of this destructive disease. The democracies are unable to rid themselves now of the forces they summoned from the steppes of Asia.

All the small European nations who capitulated, confident of Allied assurances, are facing complete annihilation. It is entirely uninteresting whether this fate will befall them a little earlier or later, what counts is its implacability. The Kremlin Jews are motivated only by tactical considerations; whether in one case they act with immediate brutality or, in another case, with some reticence, the result will always be the same.

>excerpt from his final speech

Attached: 1504866730680.jpg (633x744, 210K)

You'll be majority Islamic before France even though Kazakhstan is already 150km from Stalingrad.

Attached: Screenshot_29.jpg (397x226, 17K)

ironically they were very similar. both were meant to be purifying masonic stooges who tried to reign in their own enablers when it was already too late.

Attached: Thule-Gesellschaft.svg.png (110x110, 4K)

Hitler had 5 millions soldiers against 2.5m soviet. It was a zerg rush that failed. The Germans couldn't inflict a total defeat.

Eastern Front animated 1941: youtube.com/watch?v=wu3p7dxrhl8
Eastern Front animated 1942: youtube.com/watch?v=pucJTYK7_Yo

Attached: russia-billionaires.jpg (906x689, 158K)

and so what. Napoleon came to Moscow faster than "powerfull" nazis.

Napoleon didn't need oil. Napoleon didn't need to cut off the Persian corridor. Napoleon didn't need to bomb Ural industry from the Volga. Moscow was useless the Red Army had already used conscripts to build northern rail lines from Murmansk to the Urals.

Ever since my peace proposal of July 1940 was rejected, we have clearly realized that this struggle must be fought through to the end. We are not at all surprised that the Anglo-American, Jewish and capitalist world is united together with Bolshevism. In our country we have always found them in the same community. Alone we successfully fought against them here in Germany, and after 14 years of struggle for power we were finally able to annihilate our enemies.

Attached: 1531294928850.jpg (1138x640, 128K)

His only "success" was creating Israel for the Jews.

Attached: 1518238993663.jpg (468x895, 46K)

Because one was against the jews who control the narrative.

You know the answer, because Nappy didn't gas (((them)))
Also it's not Napoleon who started the Napoleonic Wars

>which were equally destructive across Europe?
Not really
Napoleonic battles happened across fields, cities were rarely destroyed

Because Napoleon and the French revolution are kosher approved

>he was also fucking retarded to open a front against russia while his front against britain was not closed.
So was Napoleon

>By that standard, Napoleon had no successes either.

Napoleon won 5 wars before being defeated
How many wars did Hitler win?

>The French Army alone had more tanks, men and artillery than the Wehrmacht.

True for tanks, but not for men
Also Germany had a massive advantage in air force

Attached: bt.png (328x243, 9K)

yeah but it took way longer for napolean to get retarded

>Napoleon didn't need oil

What prevented Hitler's army from just walking like Napoleon's one did?
Laziness?

The Germans didn't commit all of their divisions mate. The French Army alone had more tanks, men and artillery than the Wehrmacht during the Battle of France.

Bc (((they))) have an axe to grind with hitler

t. was invaded in a month and occupied for 5 years

Napoleon won wars then had the same countries declare war on him again next year.

The figures on the pic are the ones that took part in the battle of France, brainlet
So yes, all those listed on the pic were committed

He needed oil for more than just troop transport mate. Tanks, logistics, heating, industry, airplanes, rubber, plastics, etc. Napoleon didn't meet the Russian Army until Borodino.

>t. was invaded in a month

In a battle that saw the British army run away after two weeks
You're like the only country on this planet not in position to mock us for 1940

Is this true? I read when they communicated to Stalin that Hitler had invaded he called them liars and put the phone down?????

Why do blacks gets apologies for slavery when thousands of Europeans among other races were enslaved under the Roman Empire for hundreds of years. It’s an agenda obviously

You're wrong. I'm not shitting on the French by the way, in Canada they teach us that the refusal to retreat ensured the crack troops in Belgium would be encircled. We're taught that the French tried to rerun late WWI with static lines.

>Napoleon didn't meet the Russian Army until Borodino.

Wrong
Here's the list of battles that happened before Borodino

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ekau
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saltanovka
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ostrovno
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vitebsk_(1812)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Smolensk_(1812)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Polotsk
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Valutino

>all these mongrels talking like they will ever achieve 1/1000 of what Hitler did in the time he had
Your opinion is IRRELEVANT

Wrong as the USSR planned to invade the oil fields in Romania.

>4000 men
>15000 men
>3000 men
You're not arguing in good faith and what I said still rings true, those were almost all battles with locally raised militias.

The BEF was a small compared to the French or German armies. High command had them ready to evacuate to England even before the French army let them get encircled because they knew you wouldn't win.

Also we can mock you because we won the Battle for Britain.

>The BEF was a small compared to the French or German armies.

Well, maybe if you faggots weren't able to have a relevant army despite being a "superpower" then you shouldn't have declared war on Germany...

>Also we can mock you because we won the Battle for Britain.

Yeah, because defeating Nazi Germany, a country known for its strong LAND army (and not for its navy or air force) that used tactics based on tanks sure is very impressive when you're a fucking island....

Is this rhetorical, or do you really just want 100 replies saying
"Jews"
Because the answer is Jews.

Thats post Stalin era propaganda. Stalin bashing was all the rage in Khrushchev's time. All the former underlings who at that point were in charge seeking to blame all their failures on the dead guy.

You could include other coaliton battles Napoleon met the Russians in, including Austerlitz.

I suspect the Red Army did.

>soviets weren't preparing to invade the Romanian oil fields
Lel

Which hollywood movies and video games glorify the german reich?

Because Napoleon didn't (overtly) oppose the global banking system...the very one which still exists today...

lmao, based

Attached: operationuranus.jpg (1920x1235, 741K)

Maybe you shouldn't have either

France was supposed to have a strong land army.

The Germans had a larger air force than Britain, and it was very good too, although some models were somewhat inferior.
The Luftwaffe enjoyed Aerial superiority on the Eastern front right until the end of the war whilst engaged on two other fronts.

Napoleon pulled off probably the all time greatest set piece battle at Austerlitz. everything from the false retreat the day before, to repelling the Tsar’s Royal Guard counter attacks on the lines center is flawless. i love Hitler as much as any goy but Napoleon is one of the top 5 military minds of all time. also he managed to take Moscow, although unable to force the Russians into a route geography and winter would force him back to France.

You know what, looking at the direction Russia is going and the US and Europe have gone, maybe it wasn't so bad to to be immunized against the communism. Try fighting communism now, because in Russia communism is not a problem, in the US its a problem. And with all state's surveillance tool, good luck with the later version of proper communism building. Because that's exactly what the US has become without uttering the word. Russian communism had no capability of total surveillance. They won.

Napoleon IS the greatest of all time.

>The Luftwaffe enjoyed Aerial superiority on the Eastern front right until the end of the war whilst engaged on two other fronts.
uhhh, no. Starting from mid 1943 and on the luftwaffe was losing superiority or in some cases utterly collapsing (North Africa comes to mind). By the time D-Day rolled around the western allies had what amounts to aerial supremacy. After Stalingrad the Soviets started learning how to properly build and use aircraft and the air war in the East was pretty even until 1944

because moustache man bad

I wouldnt argue against that. hard to just pick out a best. in one way you could say Andrew Jackson is superior to Napoleon as he defeated the Brittish general who bested Napoleon.

Attached: 319724E9-2AF3-4B7C-96C2-E59E9A815F3A.jpg (306x335, 26K)

It's only recently that we can talk about Bonaparte so openly, some decades ago it was taboo.

why is that? he is perhaps the greatest military mind of all time. i think he is a great honor to your nation. to be fair i only know about him militarily, maybe he was a dick?

> defending the fucking JEWviet Union, as if they ever gave a fuck about the Russian People
> commiecucks always kvetching that Hitler was going to genocide Slavs …. meanwhile the Bolshevik Kikes slaughtered 60 Million Christian Russians during the Red Terror, and 10-0 Million Ukrainians during the Holodomor
OH YEAH, B-BUT HITLER WAS GOING TO GENOCIDE SLAVS LADS, H-HE WAS GOING TO !!!

Attached: JewvietUnionkillcount.jpg (640x480, 242K)

Pretty sure that Andrew guy never fought Wellington
Also Wellington alone didn't best Napoleon, it was Wellington + Blucher

You faggots had 30 million subhuman mongrel Asiatic scum in reserve from Central Asia and Siberia.
You unleashes 5 Million Mongrel Asiatics when the Wehrmacht was only miles from capturing Moscow and liberating the Russian people from the ROTE PEST

>american reading comprehension
>on the eastern front
I didn't say anything about the allies on other fronts. Britain won superiority in the west in 1940 and went about bombing Germany.

On the Eastern front however, the Soviets didn't gain advantage until late 1944, after Romania fell, when the Germans begun to suffer from fuel shortages.
The soviets had numerical superiority in planes, yet failed to control the skies in any major battle before their offensives into central Europe - all whilst the allied campaign bled their airforce and trained pilots white.

He was a dick. An amazing General in the field, but a despot with little to no diplomatic ability beyond accepting surrenders that would let his enemies declare war again later.

The greatest military mind of all time? Well, its hard to compare him to the classics, and his victories weren't lasting but he shoudl certainly be considered one of them.

because he was the last european "bad guy".
give it a hundred or two years and it will be different

Not his, Hitler was totally unskilled in military tactics and overrided his generals commands constantly.

>give it a hundred or two years and it will be different

Probably. And the globalization of the world would have to come down too, or at least some things in the control of media/academia would need to change.

Attached: globalism.jpg (1005x1106, 352K)

Lend-Lease

He micromanaged his army on the eastern front to utter annihilation instead of letting his generals do their jobs. He also made rommel kill himself or else he would order the death of rommel's family, and thus he made sure that his most successful military leaders were out of the picture. Hitler was a retarded meth head and that is why his "military successes" arent celebrated. If you compare hitler to napoleon you must just be a fucking retard but hey
>mutt education

Hitler fought the banks and the banks won

Attached: 10rpgoldobv.jpg (1024x1018, 228K)

>no counter-argument

You sold materiel to them, in return for gold.
And it's not as big a factor as it's made out to be, not compared to USSR production.

sorry Pakenham only led a regiment under Wellington. my mistake.