Why are germans so bad at war yet anglos are so great at it?

why are germans so bad at war yet anglos are so great at it?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.org/stream/MastnystalinAndProspectsOfSeparatePeaceInWorld/Mastny--StalinAndProspectsOfSeparatePeaceInWorldWarIi_djvu.txt)
quora.com/Who-said-Quantity-has-a-quality-all-its-own
pompeiana.org/Resources/Ancient/Graffiti from Pompeii.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>1 post by this id

fuck off drew

anglo allied himself with a jew

>Germans bad at war
>Anglos so great at it
>France capitulated
>Britain literally needed Russia to bail its sorry ass out
>Russia did more to defeat Germany than any other one nation during the Second World War

Anglos are better at war, Germans are better at production.
Or Anglos are the soldiers Germans are the factory workers.

Midwest fag get out

This, 90% of germans casualties were on the eastern front, all this proves is that slavs were the true killing machines. They even killed more of their own guys than the anglos killed germans.

Anglo fights with freinds
Krauts fight alone

Anglo friends are other Anglos.

english, kiwis, canadians are shit tier anglos

americunts, south africans, Rhodesians are great tier anglo

aussies are god tier anglo

do krauts have friends anyway?

Because they can't understand chaos.

>FIGHTING NEARLY ALL OF EUROPE + USA
>less manpower, less material
>nearly won
>bad at war

wew, lad.
Imagine how the world would look like if the anglos would be less of jew puppets and less of race traitors.

Anglo's truely are etrenal

>anglos

you mean whites
not "whites", but whites

>nearly won

Is this a joke?

>nearly won
lmfaooooo yeah you nearly won doood...

>lost to fucking emus

Yep. Germany would've won the war if moscow fell in 1941, but winter saved the commies and eventually destroyed all hope the white world had.

White's are the new Romans. We see how the world slowly degenerates and eventually falls, leading to a new dark age. This is how Romans must've felt in 400.

>why are germans so bad at war yet anglos are so great at it?
Because Germans have bad objectives. If you think a nation of 70 million can divide and rule the world then you're an idiot

They had the last laugh.

>thinking that moscow was strategically important and not symbolic at the time

Regardless, the Germans didn't have anywhere near the manpower to take Moscow when the commies were dug in and had a manpoewr and material advantage

That's fact, actually.

>burger educamation

Almost only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades, Hans.

In war, the Brits lose every battle except the last one.

But its true, in ww1 the germans were soo close to winning that even the british said they had one weeks worth of food left for the army and if they never go resupplies from america we would of lost.

Germans beat the british in the western theater, only because the ruskies went full zerg is the only reason we was able to survive

If germany would have gotten muscovy europe would be a nuclear wasteland you fucking mongoloid. All you fucking germans accoplished is losing every war you start and making every other white male apologise for his existence. you are the last nation on earth that holds anything honorable.

Because you're bloodthirsty allies of the Jews.

Initiative. Germans (note, not the Swiss) have a hierachy fetish. They organize well, they are disciplined individually, but they show no initiative, which leads to predictability. The anglos, particularly the brits, are less organized, but can depend on individual initiative. In fact, they encourage unorthodox thinking by awarding medals like the victoia cross to people who are downright suicidal but turn the battle in one small action.

>nuclear wasteland

>nuclear weapons wasnt around at that time

Stop posting, your stupidity hurts mountain nigger.

You Anglos use minions of your colonies, slavs and god knows what to win wars. Germans are dying at least as germans.

And it's quite the opposite for Germany.

>Germany fucks good but cums too early

Germany was good at it in Europe against other european countries. They dominated

But Russia and America are just so much bigger it wasnt a contest

NOT AFTER YOUR GRANDMA GOT GAPED BY IVAN AND HIS 12 FRIENDS LOL

Germans are great at war. Their problem has been for the last 100 years that they don't walk into the bar and say "i can whip the toughest guy in the room."

Germany keeps walking into the bar and saying " I can whip EVERY guy in the room".

even the mma heavyweight champ, or whatever your favorite example of a human killing machine is, can't beat up 10 people at once.

>why are germans so bad at war yet anglos are so great at it?

Germans are cowardly bullies. During WW2, they lost 3 million men but in 1945 there were 7 million German POWs held by Britain and the USA. That's not counting another 5 million who surrendered to the Soviets.

The Germans had enough men, weapons, vehicles and ammunition to continue the war more or less indefinitely. But they surrendered instead because they are innately cowardly.

In total, 12 million German prisoners were in Soviet, British or German hands by the end of 1945 - and 80% of them surrendered before the end of April 1945.

Germans. Are. Cowards. Everyone knows it.

Germans aren't bad at war. In fact, they're great warriors. The problem: in their last two major wars:
1: Generals and strategy planners from the 19th century who didn't know how to deal with/what to do with the new technology such as machine guns, massively powerful new artillery and, especially, the airplane.
2: in the case of WWII, Hitler initially followed the advice of his generals, made huge strides toward victory with his Blitzkrieg tactics. Made the mistake of allowing himself to fight a war on two fronts then, as he got more paranoid over time, stopped listening to his generals and began trying his own fail strategies.

>Case in point: ME262 (first jet fighter) would have won the war. Hitler wanted bombers, not fighters, insisted that the 262 be converted to light bombing.

Yeah, the guy was a big-time fuck-up but, then, so was Kaiser Willy.

lmfaooooooooo you just sit there being all neutral and shit for an eternity dood...

>nearly won

Yeah, look at these Germans nearly winning by siging an unconditional surrender.

>2016
>Not realising being nefarious and manipulating people to do things for you is more effective

Look at this picture, fucko. It shows the brave German panzers nearly winning at Alamein.

>the feels
no we don't have any...only good or bad enemies

Actually, the best military in both World Wars was the Germans. They just weren't big enough to win.

"Sometimes, quantity has a quality all on its own"

- J Stalin

>would

and if we had a decent leader we WOULD have won too

Yeah, like when Napoleon took Moscow and the Russians capitulated?

>Kraut education

what happened to the japs then? huge bird shit? you know that the US had plans to let one down over germany aswell? fucking caries eating your brain you british shit?

You're not a very good troll.

>0/10

>Lurk moar

>muscovy europe would be a nuclear wasteland
>wat

>1941
>moscow falls
>with no supply line over the ladoga river, Leningrad shortly falls after
>Soviet Union lost now all it's important war fabrics, as the couldn't move them in time
>Soviet Union surrenders (Stalin already wanted to surrender in 1941, giving Germany basically the WW1 territories, but military command stopped him check for that archive.org/stream/MastnystalinAndProspectsOfSeparatePeaceInWorld/Mastny--StalinAndProspectsOfSeparatePeaceInWorldWarIi_djvu.txt)
>with no Soviet threat left, Germany can lead a full assault on Britain
>but Churchill surrenders before that
>Cold war with USA
>Japan gets China, Korea
>Italy gets north Africa
>peace in Europe, the dawn of White Supremacy
>2016, we already colonise the Mars with the help of a unified fascistic world

You misquoted.

It was FDR, not Stalin, who said, "There are times when quantity has a quality all of its own." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, August 1942

You don't even know where and what switzerland is, burger.

>But its true, in ww1 the germans were soo close to winning that even the british said they had one weeks worth of food left for the army

250,000 americans for the meat grinder were arriving every month at the worst point of the war for the allies. Then to top it off the Krauts fucked up their own final push while they were 60 miles away from Paris and went from being able to negotiate for the low countries and a chunk of France into being made the biggest bitch the world has ever seen with Versailles and the Kaiser being run out of the country.

Yeh but thats how jews fight fuck that. We would straight up beat anyone else 1v1 in Europe bar Russia now though

try harder

YEAH WITH PLANES. WHICH FUCKING PLANE COULD FLY FROM AMERICA TO EUROPE DUMBASS.

If the war is over in 1941, latest 1942 there would be no atom bombs in 1945.

honestly senpai hitler was kind of a speed freak and a flake, he would probably keep wigging out till the whole country collapsed.


also, fuck mars, lets just colonize africa. Drain the swamps, clear the jungle, shoot the monkeys.

Hmmm.... interesting point. Maybe, nobody actually said it.

quora.com/Who-said-Quantity-has-a-quality-all-its-own

B-36. It was pushed back in development because the Nazis couldn't take a defenseless Britain after losing some planes.

And you don't know how to win a war, Kraut.

>Germany can lead a full assault on Britain

How does Germany magically have enough ships to perform an invasion of the British Isles after defeating the USSR?

im gonna find the frog time traveler who did that and strangle him

>only world wars are wars
We have fought and won more wars than you, dumb fucking moron..

>Soviet Union lost now all it's important war fabrics, as the couldn't move them in time

Heavy industry was moved beyond the Urals in 40.

Of course I do! But, then, you're a shitty troll. That's demonstrated by you asking that very bait question, expecting me to rise to it and respond with some kind of smarmy or ignorant answer.

>Protip:

If you're going to troll, DO NOT BE OBVIOUS ABOUT IT! The point of trolling is to piss off the other guy while keeping them from realizing they're being trolled.

Use subtlety. Don't be a retarded 12YO doing totally obvious things like, "hurr durr I troll you! You mad, bru? You mad?" Really! Show some fucking finesse!

Finally, LURK MOAR! I really can't say this enough!

You cannot learn the fine art of trolling by simply posting amateur bullshit, hoping it'll get a pass as a successful trolling. Nope! It just doesn't work that way!

LURK MOAR means sit, watch, study, learn and, most of all, keep your fucking hands away from the keyboard until you fucking well KNOW what you're doing!

>The more you know...

Actually, your country has only been around since 1990. Try again.

Invasions in WW2 are not won by Naval Force, but rather by aerial force.
With the soviet union out of the war, every Axis pilot would be simply transfered to the channel.
All the new aquired fabrics would make it easy to outproduce British planes which means.

>more planes
>more manpower (axis europe vs Britain)
>equal skill

will eventually lead to a British shortage of men or planes.

>my iq is 90 and below
The post

Pic related is what aussies must face in daily live to survive one day more

Fucking college kids, jesus christ...

See this post: Oh! And while you're at it, please DO check the Trips of Truth!

>nearly won

That's... actually true. I got nothing. You win.

>Japan gets China, Korea
Even if germany wins, how does that turn into the usa not mud stomping japan?

Last time I checked, we blew those fuckers up so bad they are still bitching.

>0/10

The Romans werent able to shitpost on Sup Forums user. Truly a time to be alive, praise kek.

probably the same way they would force about half a billion people from the ussr to simply obey work and supply their most hated backstabbing enemy.

>Bad at war

>Soviet military dead WWII - 10,000,000
>German military dead WWII - 4,000,000

Also
>Defeated France in a single week

>FIGHTING NEARLY ALL OF EUROPE + USA
They had Hungary, Finland, Romania, Bulgaria, Italy, Croatia, and all their occupied territories backing them up.
If anything it was the Soviet Union fighting almost all of Europe, being honest with you.

pompeiana.org/Resources/Ancient/Graffiti from Pompeii.htm

>defeating surrender monkeys
>an accomplishment

I shiggy diggy

not even these wasted trips will save you from your failure

post your favorite Anglos

Germany was superior. The UK always forms alliances and lets other nations bear the brunt of it. See

>Napoleon
>WW1
>WW2

WW1 especially should've been a cake walk for the allies.

Japs are better than the germans

>not throwing sub-humans at the problem
I don't understand

On the Quora page

According to wikiquotes, this is a widely held misattribution. It is certainly possible that Stalin said something similar that could be interpreted this way, but it can't be definitely attributed to him.

I mean, sure. you're point's well taken. At least I can credit you for doing something most other Sup Forumsacks wouldn't bother with: doing a little research.

Still, I stand by what I posted earlier that FDR actually said it.

Think about it for a moment... Does that really sound like something Stalin would have said?

Yet Britain was also producing planes, and proved in the Battle of Britain that they could defeat the Germans whilst outnumbered over the British Isles.

Also, from everything I've read, a full invasion force would have to be supplied by sea, and even if it was theoretically possible to resupply such a massive force solely by airpower (and if it was, the allies would have done so at Normandy instead of constructing artificial harbours), the German force would only be infantry.

So your master plan would be drop Fallschirmjaeger over territory well-known by the enemy, whom are armed with tanks, cars, bicycles and the like - with a hostile, alert and armed civilian population and with British defences in place (the STOP lines).

It wouldn't work.

>Russians
>Slavs

>m-muh K/D ratio
That 10 million number includes 3 million POW's who were outright exterminated by Germans.
And Germans weren't alone in East, there was shitload of Hungarians, Romanians and Italians.
So in reality in combat it was 1.3/1 in German favor.
And keep in mind big part of Soviet casualties were from catastrophic first year.

in the same way USA helped Soviets from being stomped.
With lands lease, technology & doctrine exchange Japan fighting capabilities would've been better after 1942, as they get tanks, planes, tactics by Germans. Which leads to harder to battles and eventually a stale mate.

The USA is a democracy, means the home front would abandon a war they can not win or only by paying a high price for territories that aren't part of the USA.

Check how the war went between Germany & Sovs.

>1941 Germans crush soviets
>1941 lend lease starts
>1942-1943 stale mate
>1944 Soviets get advantage
>1945 Germany loses

Without the US help soviets would've been crushed.

>Nearly won

>Catholics
>Slavs
top kek as they say

You know Anglos are shit at war when Germany only sends 10% of their troops to the west because they know that's probably all they need.

>implying that's not the superior way to wage war

Yeah, let's get our own men killed when we can have some other gullible tards do the dying.

Lend-lease is a fucking meme. 5-7% of total production

This. US was 50% of World Economy back then didn't use the opportunity to end the cold war before it started like churchill wanted.

Well at least it gave us the Apollo Project.

You're talking about the guy that used human wave tactics. That does sound like something he'd say.

>use latin alphabet
>slavs

It was important but to say Soviets would lose without LL is exaggeration.
>inb4 m-muh truckz
>inb4 people who believe you can't retool fucking industry to build more trucks
>industry that shat out 100,000 tanks during war

Write capitalistic language on capitalist internet. Russiabro give up the fight and become friends.

How do you think they got those 3,000,000 POWs?

They captured loads of Soviets in the first few months of the war because hundreds of thousands of them deserted like cowards.

The Soviets still took fuck-tons of losses outside of desertion or surrender.
Literally check the statistics of any battle on the eastern front and I'll guarantee you that the majority of them, whether victory for the Germans or not, had higher Russian losses than German.

>And Germans weren't alone in East, there was shitload of Hungarians, Romanians and Italians.
I'm well aware of that.
Both were known to be shit-tier military forces.

The Hungarians alone lost 300,000 soldiers which took a huge chunk out of their population.
Hungary and Finland turned on Germany when they realized the Soviets were going to run a rape-train on them now that the Germans were being pushed back.

The Soviets still took major casualties even towards the end of the war.

Sorry. It didn't work for the Germans in WWI, it wouldn't have worked for them in WWII, either. Remember: the greatest arms producer in the world at that time, USA, was dragged into the war relatively early by the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

USA came into WWI very late and even after the Russians pulled out of the war after their revolution, Germany still lost!