Reading Leon Degrelle's book 'Epic Sotry of the Waffen SS", and I came across a page that really hit me hard. On page 22, Degrelle says that it was Mussolini's incompetance basically that cost Germany the victory over the Communist Bolsheviks in Russia. I think Degrelle was spot on to blame him: (page 22)
>But for a matter of a few days Hitler would have won the war in Russia in 1941. Before the battle of Moscow, Hitler had succeeded in defeating the Soviet Army, and taking considerable numbers of prisoners. General Guderian's tank division, which had all by itself encircled more than a million Soviet troops near Kiev, had reached Moscow right up to the city's tramway lines. It was then that suddenly an unbelievable freeze happened: 40, 42, 50 degrees celsius below zero! This meant that not only were men freezing, but the equipment was also freezing, on the spot. No tanks could move. Yesterday's mud had frozen to a solid block of ice, half a meter high, icing up the tank treads.
>In 24 hours all of our tactical options had been reversed. It was at that time that masses of Siberian troops brought back from the Russian Far East were thrown against the Germans. These few fateful days of ice that made the difference between victory and defeat, Hitler owed to the Italian campaign in Greece during the fall of 1940. Mussolini was envious of Hitler's successes. It was a deep and silent jealousy. I was a friend of Mussolini, I knew him well. He was a remarkable man, but Europe was not of great concern to him. He did not like to be a spectator, watching Hitler winning everywhere. He felt compelled to do something himself, fast.
>Impulsively, he launched a senseless offensive against Greece. His troops were immediately defeated. But it gave the British the excuse to invade Greece, which up till now had been uninvolved in the war. From Greece the British could bomb the Rumanian oil wells, which were vital to Germany's war effort. Greece could also be used to cut off the German troops on their way to Russia. Hitler was forced to quash the threat preemptively. He had to waste five weeks in the Balkans. His victories there were an incredible logistical achievement, but they delayed the start of the Russian campaign for five critical weeks. If Hitler had been able to start the campaign in time, as it was planned, he would have entered Moscow five weeks before, in the sun of early fall, when the earth was still dry. The war would have been over, and the Soviet Union would have been a thing of the past.
>The combination of the sudden freeze and the arrival of fresh Siberian troops spread panic among some of the old Army generals. They wanted to retreat to 200 miles from Moscow. It is hard to imagine such inane strategy! The freeze affected Russia equally, from West to East, and to retreat 200 miles in the open steppes would only make things worse. I was commanding my troops in the Ukraine at the time and it was 42 degrees centigrade below zero. Such a retreat meant abandoning all the heavy artillery, including assault tanks and panzers that were stuck in the ice. It also meant exposing half a million men to heavy Soviet sniping. In fact, it meant condemning them to certain death. One need only recall Napoleon's retreat in October. He reached the Berzina River in November, and by December 6th all the French troops had left Russia. It was cold enough, but it was not a winter campaign.
Like I said, I think Degrelle was right. Mussolini is why communism won in World War 2.
I heard Cordeneau thought Mussolini was Jewish controlled opposition because he was so incompetent, lol
Brandon Reed
I've heard about this before in an /nsg/ thread. I actually finished reading Hitler's Revolution by Richard Tedor today. Fantastic book that shows Hitler's tactics weren't bad, he just had a small clique of traitors messing everything up. Especially on D-Day. Many of these traitors were aristocrats who hated National Socialism for making Germany more of a meritocracy. 55 of the 70 men who attempted to assassinate Hitler came from aristocratic backgrounds. They hated how men from humble backgrounds could rise through the ranks much more easily if they showed potential and responsibility.
Hudson Smith
I'm reading "The Jews" by Hilaire Belloc ATM, do you have any thoughts on that?
Asher Nguyen
So it was someone else's fault? You're starting to sound South American
Joseph Howard
Codreanu was Hitler-tier.
The hardest thing about becoming redpilled on history is how, the more I learn, the more obvious it becomes that the 3rd Reich was the closest humanity will actually get to anything even remotely resembling utopia. I wonder sometimes if humanity proved that we aren't worthy of such things, and will never come so close to achieving it again.
Nah The war was a lost cause regardless. It came years too soon, long before any of the Axis powers were ready for it
Jordan Myers
The fact that: >General Guderian's tank division, which had all by itself encircled more than a million Soviet troops near Kiev, had reached Moscow right up to the city's tramway lines. Means you're wrong.
Joshua Cox
>essential Sup Forums reading list >first 4 are literally hitler dindu nuffin it was da joos Checks out.
William Myers
>anything describing jewish guilt = irrationally blaming the jews Salty Jew detected.
Alexander Robinson
Irrationally blaming the jews is just that, irrationally blaming the jews, believing there is some grand jewish conspiracy to enslave the world. Their fault lies with being loyal to their own tribe instead of the nation they live in and the people they live with, not some giant conspiracy.
Thomas Cook
>believing there is some grand jewish conspiracy to enslave the world Is literally just "reading the Talmud", so you realize how farcical the boilerplate shilling you kikes spew is, right? Come back and talk shit after you've read 'You Gentiles" and "The Jewish Century". Then we can talk about "grand conspiracies".
Here's the thing though: taking Moscow wouldn't have 100% guaranteed victory then and there.
Firstly, winter was inevitable, secondly, whats to say that Moscow wouldn't have become an earlier version of Stalingrad?
Stalingrad became absolute hell for several reasons, both sides absolutely wanted that city, von Richthofens airforce had completely destroyed it, in turn making it great to defend and it was a perfect opportunity for the USSR to use their superior numbers in order to wear down the Germans.
Had the Germans begun to attack Moscow, they may also there have reduced the city to rubble, which would in fact have made it easier to defend.
Also, the Soviet high command could simply have relocated away from Moscow and would probably have succeeded in reclaiming it during the winter.
Ryan Diaz
After reading your posts I have concluded that you are indeed right and all of you dumb goys deserve to be slaves for believing such nonsense.
Luis Ross
>taking Moscow wouldn't have 100% guaranteed victory then and there 90% victory >Firstly, winter was inevitable Winter in a city, dug in and defended, controlling communications and transportation for the entire region, with the government on the run, meant the Soviets would endure the winter in the open like the Germans had to do after failing to take Moscow. If they had Moscow, they would have had supplies, shelter, fuel, etc, -- not to mention the psychological victory of taking the capital city. Major difference.
>what i think about you No one cares.
Michael Brown
>If they had Moscow, they would have had supplies, shelter, fuel, etc Just like Napoleon. You are completely ignoring the fact that most of the factories were already moved beyond the Urals and that the USSR had an overwhelming amount of manpower compared to the Germans. German logistics were overstretched at the beginning of the war, not to mention by that point.
Ryder Hughes
>I heard Cordeneau thought Mussolini was Jewish controlled opposition because he was so incompetent Codreanu unfortunately died in 1938 and before the war Mussolini wasn't able to show is incompetence as a leader during war so I doubt that he did.
Camden Evans
Moscow wasn't just an overstated fortress like it was in Napoleon's time. By the 1940s it had become the epicenter of Soviet military operations and industry. Securing it for even a few months would have crippled the Russian war effort probably beyond repair, not to mention giving the under-equipped Germans a habitable outpost to regain strength before the inevitable spring offensives.
Samuel Moore
Gas yourself, your days are numbered :)
Ryan Miller
>Firstly, winter was inevitable, secondly, whats to say that Moscow wouldn't have become an earlier version of Stalingrad? At Moscow the rear and flank guards were well equipped and well trained Germans At Stalingrad the people protecting the flank and rear were Croatians, Estonians and Romanians with outdated equipment and who hadn't had much training.
Dominic Cooper
Mussolini managed to lose against an already defeated and invaded France!
while german armies had already defeated France in the north east, Mussolini decided to backstab France and invade it in the south east to claim Nice, Corsica and other territories. This buffoon managed to fail hard, with at some point a garnison of 8 french soldiers managing to repeal thousands of italian soldiers
fascist Italy was obviously the worst ally to ever have for Hitler during the war, and it certaintly did cost him the war. But it was also his fault for allying with a people that lost against ETHOPIA couple of years earlier
Chase Morgan
We don't have a country >IT'S AN ISSUE! GET THE EUROPEANS TO FIX IT! We're retarded sandniggers and we don't know how to create good weaponry or equipment >THAT'S A PROBLEM! LET'S GET THE AMERICANS TO FIX IT We don't have enough money to fund our horrible infrastracture, military, police et.c >IT'S THE GOYIMS FAULT, MUHH 6 GORILLION, REPARATIONS NOW!!!11
Charles Cox
>Just like Napoleon. The world changed since then. If Moscow had fallen at that point in history, it meant Leningrad and Novgorod -- if this happened, German logistics would become superior, and Soviet counter-attacks would have been curtailed. You're also ignoring the political side-effects of the Wehrmacht reaching Moscow: Stalin would likely not have survived such a failure, and Churchill would likely have stepped down to make way for a government capable of offering peace. Churchill barely survived a no-confidence vote after Singapore and Tobruk, so he wouldn't have survived Hitler taking Moscow. This would essentially strike the world as a reversal of the 1919 revolution, and be symbolic and historical in its own right. The Soviet army could have fought on for a time, or perhaps sued for peace and been left to retreat to some portion of the East in Siberia, but it would have been reduced to a nothing by then, and crushed later by the Germans anyway. The loss of the Soviet Union or its reduction to a de-industrialized backwater with a scavenged army would have left the Allies no choice but to use atomic weapons on the 3rd Reich, but by then, I imagine the Reich would have had them too.
Jaxon Thomas
germany lost a massive amount of troops in the opening of barbarossa that and the fact that the germans never knew how many divisions they could raise they got right how many they had but not how many they could raise people dont understand Germany never had a chance to win against russia even if they did every thing right
Justin Bailey
how would german logistics become superior? at the start of operation barbarossa they counted of the fact that they could capture russian train cars and train engines that did not happen and had to depend on trucks that they did not have enough of and were not doing so well in the mud of russia
Angel Cox
Also Franco. Hitler invested a lot of resources helping Spain and Franco didn't respond accordingly, sending him just a bunch of unarmed soldiers to his aid. This was, in part, due to some generals warning him that Hitler would lose the war. Which could also be the reason why so many of his troops refused to advance for the final push to victory.
The five extra weeks would have been completely insufficient to take moscow anyways, as the germans were planning to encircle and besiege it. Attacking it directly would have defeated them, as urban warfare minimizes the advantages the germans have over the reds: maneuverability and better cooperation between the different branches of the armed forces. I wonder if the afrikakorps could have been used to aid the finns in their assualt on the artic city ports and they could have encircled leningrad from the north. But could they be supplied and would italy lend their troops in russia, if they didn't get anything in the mediterranean?
Ian Bennett
would have been nice to deny the british entry in to the sea make it hard to supply malta Franco i kinda see a bit as a traitor no offence
John Diaz
they couldn't complete the encirclement, that's the point. THe freeze stopped them.
