>Lose Battle of Britain
>Invade USSR
>Troops retreating at Moscow
>Declare war on US
What did they mean by this?
Lose Battle of Britain
Dominic Carter
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
telegraph.co.uk
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtu.be
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
lrb.co.uk
twitter.com
Benjamin Richardson
This is what happens when you ellect a charismatic fucktard as your leader.. Hitler/Trump.. same but different. All the will but nothing to back it up with
Juan Green
That they were not pussies.
Josiah Long
Come back when you've read some David Irving kid.
Lincoln Cooper
They tried to take on the whole world in order to save the white race but ultimately weren't able to succeed. The result is the mess we live in now.
Brody Martinez
>Britain declares Germany in 1939
>Germany wins Western front war in 1940
>Stalemate in aerial sideshow war in August 1940
>Pre-emptive war against Stalin, weeks before Stalin was about to invade Europe
>Get attacked by USA, unprovoked
>Still hold out 4 years
Biggest mistake was not going for Gibraltar, Africa and the Middle East with more force and sooner and with the backing of Spain.
Cooper Robinson
Imagine if Brazil, Venezuela, and Spain threw down. baka.
Asher Nelson
>bankrupted the british empire
>lost all the colonies
>bombed civilians
>handed eastern europe to stalin
Jayden Reyes
This is the correct timeline. The US navy attacked German ships and aided the British long before the official entry into the war. Roosevelt provoked Japan into attacking, and we upheld our obligations towards our ally. Operation Barbarossa was a preemptive strike; Stalin was preparing to invade Western Europe. Pretty much everything the Third Reich did from the Polish campaign onwards was born of absolute military necessity, to avoid total defeat.
Luis Bennett
>aerial sideshow war
u wot m8
Ethan Watson
>prolonged the depression
>lied about preventing the war
>made a deal to attack germany
>goaded japan into attacking
>committed treason
>started the cold war
Tyler Butler
1500 planes lost on both side vs. 50,000 planes engaged on the Eastern front... next to millions of soldiers and tanks etc.
>not an aerial sideshow... ok
Daniel Parker
>murders millions
>co-invaded poland
>started the war
>tried to invade germany
>murders millions
Mason Perry
You deserved to be defeated, fascist scum.
Andrew Barnes
Gud posts
Charles Sanchez
>Roosevelt provoked Japan into attacking
>we dont want to trade with you because you threaten our interests
>reeeeeeeeeeeeeee they provoked us into war
holy shit no wonder the axis lost the war, they were just a bunch of screeching autists
Jacob Rodriguez
>recovers from the depression
>reunifies germany
>tries to make peace with britain
>unifies europe
>tries to liberate eastern europe
Austin Bailey
source?
Jordan Kelly
>1500
Nearly 4000 aircraft were lost in the Battle of Britain alone you fucking Tankie.
Angel White
It means they had a drug-addled dictator with bad judgement
Connor Carter
>Anarcho capitalist
>not pussies
Pick one
Jackson Phillips
>Barbarossa was a preemptive strike; Stalin was preparing to invade Western Europe.
>weeks before Stalin was about to invade Europe
When your entire narrative is situated around a baseless claim. Top notch victims we have here. It just seems like everyone was in cahoots against you guys.
Or , you know, every major conflict was the nationalists doing exactly what they said they would do (literal documentation and extensive writings) and chimping out with a massive military industrial complex being the basis of their industry.
Michael Harris
>run by a military industrial complex
>their military industrial complex is shit
>lose the war
My irony meter exploded.
Ian Turner
That they overestimated themselves. Hitler could have won the war if he had attacked one front at a time. Even though Hitler was charismatic, he was not a great military leader.
James Brooks
For some reason, I remember half of Europe being in the germans pocket with a single front open and him still getting his shit kicked in by central asian conscripts.
Then a second front was opened. By the western nations, long after the war was decided.
Xavier James
How exactly was it shit?
They were on their way to outpace the allies in industrial production prior to the attack on the USSR with much lower populations and much of their production was focused towards the military sector.
It is pretty logical for the industry to support a war when most of the production is concentrated in that sector and there is a decent chance of winning.
Michael Bennett
>making decisions that get your country literally ass-raped by Soviet Communism for decades on end
Yeah whoo so tough and manly.
Connor Davis
It clearly was Roosevelt's intention to push his country into the war; burgers committed provocations against the German navy too, and aided the Axis' enemies at every turn. War was inevitable one way or another as long as that commie-loving internationalist cuck was in charge. Also, Japan had no other choice but to attack since it was being strangled by the oil embargo. Its entire colonial empire was at stake.
>When your entire narrative is situated around a baseless claim.
Except that it isn't. Stalin's intentions are clearly documented in his speeches (such as the one from August 1939 and the one from May 1941). His plan was to let the "two blocs of capitalist states" exhaust each other in war, and ultimately sweep in with his Red Army and take over Europe. I find it amusing how anti-Axis propaganda zealots such as yourself are always so smug and and arrogant in their supposed understanding of what happened, yet aren't even familiar with some of the most basic and central documents of that war. Sad!
Josiah Edwards
He was about to reach a peace agreement when Stalin attacked.
Hunter Scott
>we can't actually lift our economy building useful shit, lets get the steel mills back to verk!
>lets build tanks, DUDE OUR GDP THRU DUH ROOF
>should we maybe use them...?
It doesn't matter if you prop your gdp with otherwise useless wartime products. The problem is, retards like seriously claim they are victims when a massive military build up was apparent and through use of resources for hard power diplomacy was used and led to the destruction of Europe essentially. (western cucked Europe and a commie east becuase of this trash)
Brandon Cruz
Nazi Germany more industrial capability than the Soviet Union, they should have been able to out-produce the Soviets, and yet they didn't because they never bothered to completely go on a war economy until Barbarossa was already underway and even after that everything was being made in traditionally time-consuming German craftsman style. The Germans never perfected mass assembly line production like the Soviets or the Americans, which is why they made so little equipment by comparison.
Their insistence on trying to produce 5 billion different things, and their constituent parts/replacements at the same time didn't help either.
You're wrong on Stalin BTW. It's a hoax, there is literally no evidence Stalin was going to invade the Reich, the buildup was entirely defensive. You can insist we're wrong all you want, it's the truth, even fi you don't want it to be.
Dylan Bell
“If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible"
Oh wait that was Truman, not Stalin.
German policy was clearly focused on expansion, even written in Mein Kampf with the whole idea of lebensraum.
>You're wrong on Stalin BTW. It's a hoax, there is literally no evidence Stalin was going to invade the Reich, the buildup was entirely defensive. You can insist we're wrong all you want, it's the truth, even fi you don't want it to be.
Not the one arguing for that, just pointing out that both German industrial and political leaders had very good reasons to want a war, both due to their economic reliance on military production and political goals.
Nathaniel Nelson
>30+ posts in
>still no one who's read an actual history book
David Irving davud Irving Irving David David Irving david
Aaron Anderson
Though Roosevelt was the better leader, Truman arguably had a better sense of....reality. Roosevelt was an idealist who seemed to think he could try to soften Stalin, while Truman always saw him for the monster he was.
Cooper Martinez
Hitler was a social justice warrior...
He was a fail Art student, vegan, animal rights activist.
And he blamed the Jew's for owning banks.
Trump isn't any of those things
Tyler Cook
>Oh wait that was Truman, not Stalin.
Not an argument.
Mein Kampf is overrated when it comes to Hitler's actual intentions during the war. It was written in the early 1920s when the USSR was basically a 3rd-world shithole. Hitler also wrote in it that the Soviets aren't even capable of mass-producing trucks. Well, in 1941 they certainly were capable.
Again, there is clear evidence of Stalin's aggressive intentions; he laid out his entire scheme in his speeches of 19th August 1939 and 5th May 1941, to the point of announcing that the "time of military expansion of the Soviet Union" had come.
Germany's military buildup is no argument in favor of your idiotic manichaean "Axis-is-to-blame-for-everything" narrative at all. Its military had to be sized down to 100,000 men after the Versailles dictate; of course nationalists like Hitler would rebuild it. This doesn't prove any aggressive intentions at all, and in fact military spending during the years 1933-1939 made up merely a small part of German GDP. It only spiked when the Polish crisis began to flare up and Britain's hostile intentions became increasingly obvious.
Angel Thompson
>does prove aggressive intentions
The first thing the fucker did after France was defeated was ask the general staff to plot an invasion of the USSR you fucking Wehraboo.
Leo Jackson
>break treaties
>demand territory from a country in an alliance with Britain and France
>wtf why do Britain and France have hostile intentions towards us
By the time Germany started the attack on the USSR, they already had most of Europe, except maybe Spain under their control and their expansionist policies were quite visible, on the other side the USSR had not taken any aggressive actions except for the splitting of Poland.
A war might have happened 5-10 years down the line but justifying the war with the USSR as a preemptive strike is not that smart, just call it what it was, a war of expansion for territory and resources.
Caleb Reyes
Well, for a couple of months after France they were actually delusional enough to see Sealion as a possibility, requisitioning hundreds of barges from the economy and pissing the armaments producers off, but they came to their senses after a while and then began planning Barbarossa.
Nicholas Perry
Get the fuck off my board you redditor cunt
Jacob Walker
>what is Finland
>what are the Baltic states
Fuck off.
Cameron Campbell
>relevant parts of europe
Brandon Ross
Why are there so many kikes and their cocksucking goy boys on Sup Forums?
Do you fucking retards really thing more of your winners written history bullshit can drown out the pain of a red pill?
Liam Ramirez
>Poland
Easton Lee
Don't need to be redpilled on who won and why or why it was a good thing.
Carter Richardson
Don't worry, Japan will avenge them.
youtube.com
Elijah Edwards
>Axis political propaganda, economic data and diplomatic communications are somehow jewish propaganda
They were split in two by the USSR and Germany after Britain refused to oppose German expansion, it was only logical to sign a non aggression pact with Germany and acquire some free territory.
telegraph.co.uk
cbf to find actual source, but the USSR was too focused on internal economic, military and political reforms to engage in any sort of aggressive war prior to the German offensive.
The jews were right all along, goys are complete idiots.
Chase Sanchez
>they already had most of Europe
>expansionist policies
This shitty non-argument again.
None of the German conquests in Europe were born of "expansionist policies," but strategic necessity. Britain threatens to occupy Norway - gotta move first. The low countries are collaborating with the Allies - knock them out before they can serve as an invasion base against Germany. Yugoslavia's government - a German ally - is toppled by a British-funded coup and thus involved in the war. Every one of these invasions was Germany reacting to existential threats, not invading shit for lulz. But somehow this is proof that Hitler wanted to conquer the world?
Let's turn this stupid game around: The Allied actions against Iceland, Iran, Yugoslavia, Syria and Iraq are clear, unmistakable proof of Churchill's, Roosevelt's and Stalin's aggressive, expansionist intentions! They even invaded Italy in 1943 and France in 1944! Clearly, this makes them the sole aggressors!
I find it hilarious how you people always have to resort to rancid sophistry like this to justify your anti-German claims. The entire case against the Axis is built on such hypocrisy and fallacious arguments. I seriously hope at some point in the future we can get an actual neutral, professional historical science that treats all sides of this old war equally, instead of this disgusting politicized good-vs-evil Hollywood garbage.
Dominic Rivera
You know you deserve every last one of those shitskin terrorists and drugged up kids gone haywire that fuck up your comfortable life in North America.
Hope you get blown to shit from the waist down so that you can finally be at the natural level for sucking off kikes.
Liam Powell
Expansion is a strategic necessity sometimes, the other countries naturally opposed it because it was against their interests.
If Germany did not seek territorial expansion in Poland, WWII probably would not have happened or would have been delayed by a decade or two.
What's your point?
Anthony Diaz
t. literal non country in 20 years
Henry Carter
>What did they mean by this?
youtube.com
Hudson Evans
If Poland hadn't positioned itself against Germany, started to abuse the German minority, tried to swallow up Danzig and refused to negotiate a settlement of the diplomatic crisis, WW2 probably would not have happened. If Britain hadn't issued Poland a blanco guarantee, emboldening it while refusing any serious negotiations with Germany, WW2 probably would not have happened.
And again, lies. Hitler didn't seek territorial expansion in Poland. He had only one territorial claim in the east which he wouldn not relinquish - Danzig; not part of Poland at the time.
My point is that the history of WW2 isn't the ridiculously simplistic manichaean myth our politicized propaganda-based history makes it out to be. It was a typical human conflict. If we're to assign blame, although it is shared by all involved parties, I'd say the Allies are more at fault, since the Axis nations were fighting for their own vital national interests, and were moreover always openly willing to negotiate and compromise, while the West announced total war until the bitter end pretty much from the start.
Eli Evans
Trump is literally the new Godwin's Law. But only with positive faggotry for reddit normies.
Mason Barnes
>baseless claim
Yeah that the reason when Germans invaded they were shocked just how much offensive equipment they found on the border, so much that they found almost no defensive stock.
Do you know why it was so easy for germans to invade Soviet very early in the operation?
Because Soviets weren't prepared for defensive stance, but rather preparing to be The aggressor.
Liam Butler
...
Hudson Jones
...
Jace Morales
The truth about immigration, by the numbers:
>youtube.com
Cultural Marxist Jews Admit Organizing White Genocide
The plan to eliminate the white race:
>youtube.com
Cultural Marxism in action… Political Correctness, the tip of the blade:
>youtube.com
Cultural Marxism & Social Justice Explained:
>youtube.com
Why are we in Decline - Cultural Marxism:
>youtube.com
also see
The facts about slavery in North America:
>youtube.com
>youtube.com
Cultural Marxist Jews fund media propaganda against whites on an enormous scale:
>youtube.com
Does this sound familiar at all? (starting at 6:52)
>youtu.be
The Holocaust:
>youtube.com
>youtube.com
>youtube.com
Alexander Sanchez
I actually knew this. In fact, Stalin's own generals even told him that having such a heavy presence on the new border would be a mistake if they were playing it defensively, suggesting the army should be stationed along the pre-1939 borders. But he insisted they move to be right on Germany's ass.
So either he was planning an attack at some point, or he risked setting up the country for failure early on either way.
I mean... 1,000 aircraft destroyed in 24 hours has got to set off red flags.
Ryan Kelly
Get your kike out of here.
Dylan Green
>My point is that the history of WW2 isn't the ridiculously simplistic manichaean myth our politicized propaganda-based history makes it out to be.
Sure.
>I'd say the Allies are more at fault, since the Axis nations were fighting for their own vital national interests, and were moreover always openly willing to negotiate and compromise, while the West announced total war until the bitter end pretty much from the start.
Everyone is always fighting for their vital interests.
Britain gave Germany plenty of concessions and even refused to defend Poland at first due to their WWI experience, along with their lack of a solid military industrial base they were nowhere ready to fight a war.
The USSR was probably more prepared but their units were still massively undersupplied, often with no radios, fuel or even ammunition. Couple that with the "restructuring" taking place in the mid level military leadership, they also weren't ready for a war.
It was logical for Germany to seek territorial expansion when the rest of the players were weak but they overextended.
If you look at this purely from a geopolitical perspective, Germany was correct in attempting to seize more territory and ressources but they underestimated British and Soviet military and industrial capacity.
Luke Wilson
Malta?
Colton Powell
How fucking retarded do you have to be?
>Stalin was about to invade Europe, despite already invading Poland with the help of Hitler.
>US entry was unprovoked despite Japan and Germany declaring war against America almost simultaneously.
Joshua Peterson
Why can't Germans into air battle?
Gabriel Allen
In the end it wasn't even Malta a problem
The Regia Marina delivered over than 80% of the convoy
The real problem was that the Italian navy lacked fuel and could't really blockade the med
Hunter Hughes
So, in other words, the Americans were trying to bait him into a war and he fell for it.
Hitler was great at emotional manipulation, but the German navy was a complete non-issue, the sanctions were hardly a threat, and America wasn't a threat unless they combined personnel and industrial power with the Brits.
Way too reactionary, and extremely overconfident. His sense of superiority made him inferior because he underestimated his enemies, lost the respect of his allies, and never questioned himself.
That's why they lost the war, and a big part of the plot to kill him as well.
Luke Roberts
That's all just conjecture. The hard facts tell us that:
1) Germany made very reasonable proposals in attempt to solve the Polish question diplomatically. In fact, German-Polish relations were continuously improving until Pilsudski's unfortunate death, after which Poland was governed by inexperienced fools who ran the country into the ground. If Hitler wanted war and expansion, why undertake all these steps to avoid war and reach peaceful solutions with limited German expansion? Had history taken a few slightly different turns, these measures might've been successful.
2) Germany was in an atrocious geopolitical position from the start, since the majority of the world's industry, naval power, and most importantly resources were concentrated among its adversaries. This is why Hitler was so desperate to find external allies. Starting a war didn't make any sense at all; the war of 1939 was not wanted by Hitler, and in fact Germany's actions were largely dictated by outside factors rather than geostrategic calculus ever since they moved into Poland. Every one of the grand "expansionist" campaigns was a reaction to a strategic threat, rather than an action.
3) Hitler continued to offer peace treaties and negotiations until late into the war. The Western Allies kept declining any and all offers, demanding unconditional surrender. What is this if not a clear indication who wanted the war?
Matthew Young
While I agree with
>Way too reactionary, and extremely overconfident.
It's not really him to blame. The Americans didn't bait only Germany, they baited their long-time trading ally as well, Japan, for the specifically same reason - upholding their perverted Monroe Doctrine that extends globally and is supposed to keep down regional powers so they don't become a threat in the future. They're doing it to this day.
Also, when Hitler declared war he probably knew that the US would've extended the war regardless if he did it or not so he just did it to also honor his allies' pact
Robert Lewis
True, and at this point things were a bit on autopilot so, to be fair, he was responding to quickly unfolding events which could have ended in disaster either way.
Most likely the early dealings with Britain were the most significant.
Jayden Sullivan
fuck you cunts are stupid
Lincoln Sanchez
>Get attacked by USA, unprovoked
yeah, no
Luke Evans
as for battle of britain germans couldnt into radar. it helped britain tremendously, but germans didnt care. their scientists created radar that can control only one plane, so they thought brits have the same thing and ignored it. then they found one on board radar in shot down lancaster in 1944, realized how much they fucked and started working on it, but it was too late.
also germns couldnt into war industry. they focused on niche top quality weapons, but it was too expensive and time consuming to create them. Take sten machinegun for example. it was simplistic gun, but brits could make them in mountains. At later stages of war Otto Skorzeny got his hands on it and said the top brass they should make guns like that. They said that german soldiers deserves better quality, so they made better guns, but too few of them.
Also germs had million types of tanks with incompatible parts. horrible way to mass produce weapons.
Also germans didnt crank up their industry for war enough. They were making civilian cars still in 1943. on the other hands americans stopped making cars immediatelly as they entered war and everything was used for war industry.
Look at pic related for example. Germs didnt turn full war industry until 1944. And combine that with too big focus on quality. they got outproduced hard
there is more to it, but these are just some things at the top of my head
Brody Gonzalez
>This is why Hitler was so desperate to find external allies.
Which is why he allied with the USSR both for military training and trade. The trade kept going even when the war with Britain was happening.
>Every one of the grand "expansionist" campaigns was a reaction to a strategic threat, rather than an action.
Everything is almost always a reaction to a strategic threat, Russian expansion from the middle ages up to WWI was for example motivated by invasions from Asia, the Middle East and Europe, yet it was expansion that the other powers obviously tried to oppose nonetheless.
>Hitler continued to offer peace treaties and negotiations until late into the war.
There was no reason for the allies to accept a peace once they were certain to win.
Germany made big mistakes in underestimating the other powers during WWII and declared war on the USSR when they kept supplying them with resources up to the start of the German offensive, continuing neutrality and trade with the USSR was a much better decision than starting a war which they had no industrial or manpower capacity to win.
>upholding their perverted Monroe Doctrine that extends globally
It's a logical thing to do.
Xavier Brown
Um, wasn't pearl harbour the eventual result of perry blockading Tokyo harbour during the Meiji restoration? The gooks have long memories forvshit like that
>inb4 embargos, Manchuria campaign
Ryder Campbell
FUCKEN WOT CUNT
Kevin Gomez
>It's a logical thing to do.
It's not. I don't dismember my neighbors because I'm anxious that they might earn more money than me someday in the future and might potentially buy a gun with that money so they might potentially kill me. The Monroe Doctrine is based on the flawed thought that "sometime in the future, there is a *potential* for those entities to act against us, so therefor we should certainly act against them". It's immoral and is the most aggressive mentality one can hold. You cannot think and act like this and expect people to believe you that you're a neutral peace-upholding nation at the same time. It's only about time for the rest of the world to start seeing you as the new Golden Horde that is aggressive against all their neighbors for their own interests - and that's already the case, with an alliance like SCO existing that specifically counters the US which is about to include India, along with Turkey if the rumors are true that Turkey will soon leave NATO.
There is a reason why the US government is the sole government that is equally hated around the world, even including their core allies who are only allied out of interest and no other options. It's like the rich kid who paid some people to be his friends and doesn't really have any other, and will become completely alone once the money runs out.
Sebastian Murphy
The US has greatly benefited from being the strongest country in the world and has beat pretty much everyone who would challenge that claim, Japan, Germany, USSR, etc.
>and that's already the case, with an alliance like SCO existing that specifically counters the US which is about to include India, along with Turkey if the rumors are true that Turkey will soon leave NATO.
While I would disagree on specifics of the SCO, yes the balance of powers is an important concept in diplomacy/geopolitics but it is arguably dead since the end of WWII.
en.wikipedia.org
The US might have been one of the main contributors to destroying the old system, but maintaining supremacy makes perfect sense in the new one.
William Edwards
>Which is why he allied with the USSR
That was a last desperate measure to try and get Britain to back off, in the same way Bismarck allied with Austria to scare off Britain during the Danish crisis in 1864.
>There was no reason for the allies to accept a peace once they were certain to win.
They certainly weren't certain to win before 1943. Most of the casualties and destruction occured from 1941 onwards, too, so nobody was yet entangled enough in the war for it to become impossible to back out. If one side wants to fight and the other doesn't, and the outcome of the war isn't decided yet, the responsibility is clear.
Charles Sullivan
>Brave
>Not Stupid
LEL
Jaxson Cooper
shit b8 m8
Joseph Brooks
> fights against international jewry controlling all of Germany
> Supposedly didn't kill a single jew
> 5 Mil Germans die for nothing
What did they mean by this?
Ian Brown
>>Lose Battle of Britain
there is not one mentioning of a Battle of Britain in German military records, therefor you won't find anyone having thought that battlle was somehow lost at that time.
>>Invade USSR
That was the main goal of NS, having incorporated the ideas of expansion as formulated by the Alldeutsche.
>>Troops retreating at Moscow
Generals admitted the war was lost after the Blitzkrieg tactics failed in summer 1941 already.
>>Declare war on US
a formality, they were in a state of undeclared war already.
Josiah Cruz
Again, I'm not arguing whether its beneficial for the US or not. Nuking the rest of the world and being the sole survivor certainly is as well.
But it's not moral. And the US claim that they're the moral leaders of the free world. There's only so many times they can pull that card without losing credibility. Soon enough (I believe after they finish their grand campaign in the ME which might happen under Trump), no one in the world will buy their wars of liberation anymore and intervening in a war by the US will be seen as a direct act of aggression regardless of the cause their government manages to pull up. Which means that there will be no more US intervention in Ukraine or Europe in general - both Russia and the EU will block that, Turkey will block intervention in the ME, while China and SCO will block intervention in North Korea.
It will be an isolated, friendless US due to their long history of deception and Monroe Doctrine
Carter Cox
nice argument
Ryan Garcia
>Pre-emptive war against Stalin, weeks before Stalin was about to invade Europe
>when 70% of USSR army was in Siberia and Far East waiting Japan invasion
m8
Grayson White
rofl you dumb nigger, they were literally bombing london unopposed after they let you nerds escape dunkirk
Robert Fisher
>That was a last desperate measure to try and get Britain to back off
Wasn't really desperate, cooperation was happening before HItler even came into power and continued afterwards.
en.wikipedia.org
>They certainly weren't certain to win before 1943.
As soon as it became a war of attrition in the USSR and the US entered the war, the war was pretty much done for Germany, they had no chance of sustaining a war against superior industrial production and manpower.
>But it's not moral.
Well of course not, but morals are rarely taken into account when you are conducting foreign policy.
As for the US becoming isolated it's a possibility, but a weak one, the EU is dead, China is about to have an economic crisis and Russia is still weak and potentially facing political instability. The US is of course also facing some of those issues, but as long as the US remains the richest and most powerful country in the world no one willl really be able to oppose them.
William Cox
>Britain's hostile intentions became increasingly obvious.
>anschluss
>czechoslovakia
hmmmm
Isaiah Morgan
Who would win- 300 nazis or one commie chick armed with only a rifle?
Joseph Jenkins
it's almost like Hitler was a failure of a man and is glorified only by people stupid enough to fall for 80 year old propaganda
Colton Jackson
>Well, in 1941 they certainly were capable.
>design cool 4x4 truck
>no comrade motherland needs 4x4 armoured cars!
>no cool domestic 4x4 trucks
>have to ride american Willys MB
So sad
Isaiah King
I see that you're very patriotic when it comes to the US (probably an American in Canada), but the US isn't even close to as flawless as you make it out to be. Yes, the EU and China both have problems but neither of them can come even close to what the US is about to experience - their second Great Depression, which is a huge issue because they have an overextended army and they wont be able to finance even a quarter of it. And that comes coupled with the fact that they're losing respect globally with every next day, and counter alliances are being formed and expanded against them. And specifically with the fact that their own people started rioting against "Wall Street" when a minor bump happened, god knows what might happen when a full blown depression occurs.
Yes, we (EU) have a lot of problems but at least another Depression wouldn't cause as much damage as it would to the US. It would even centralize us on the pretense of solving the problems, like it did in the last one, and would certainly lead to economic refugees being expelled en masse. It would solve most of our problems.
Aaron Hill
>unopposed
Nigga are you fucking serious right now
Elijah Kelly
>god knows what might happen when a full blown depression occurs.
Probably a huge swing left or right just like in every other country that experiences economic hardship.
Dylan Cooper
>1 post by this ID
Andrew Gray
>I see that you're very patriotic when it comes to the US (probably an American in Canada), but the US isn't even close to as flawless as you make it out to be.
I'm not, I actually dislike US foreign policy, but it does make logical sense.
>Yes, the EU and China both have problems but neither of them can come even close to what the US is about to experience
In terms of economics I am much more knowledgeable than geopolitics and I can tell you with certainty that the economic problems of the EU (except Germany) and China run much deeper than the US.
The EU is being killed by the Euro with Germany the only one benefiting (which is why you are seeing depopulation in Greece and EE for example) lrb.co.uk
China avoided 2008 because they took on a level of private debt and a housing bubble way above of what the US had in 2008, once that debt bubble bursts it will be 2008 all over again but this time starting in China.
>counter alliances are being formed and expanded against them
Sure.
>minor bump happened
It was in no way a minor bump.
>It would even centralize us on the pretense of solving the problems
Unless that centralization creates essentially a united European state (fiscal and a bigger political union is needed) it won't solve the issues.
In short I expect US global power to decline but it will take decades if not longer for a multi polar system to return.
The US is simply in an amazing geopolitical position compared to the rest of the world, sitting on an island with vast resources, access to the ocean, waterways, arable land, etc.