• Honytawk@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    And that is why Nazis are the biggest losers in History.

    Not only did they claim their army was the best, but their people were also the best. So losing after a single war proves their army wasn’t the strongest and their people weren’t the best.

    They also got beaten by a combination of different countries who allow anyone to join.

    Meaning, the Nazis were beaten by diversity and inclusivity.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      41 minutes ago

      There’s also the funny story that the Germans were trying to break the allies code at the same time as the allies were trying to break enigma + all the other non-famous ones that they had

      The Germans didn’t have a great lot of luck though with it because they were so dismissive of anyone that wasn’t normal. So basically all the intellectuals and the mathematicians were either in a prison camp or were just not allowed to join on the basis they were a bit odd. The allies employed someone who couldn’t really get the hang of cups, but he was a hell of a mathematician so they put up with it

    • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 hours ago

      The Confederates, for the non-Americans, take challenge to that.

      They were the opposing force during the American Civil War, trying to keep slavery. Their reign was so short, even a can of beans last longer than they did.

      And yet that doesn’t stop chucklefucks in the American South proudly showing their Confederate flag, all because America is too chicken shit to call them losers.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      The European World Wars only produced losers. WW1 signaled the beginning of the end of the British Empire, the escalated decline of the French Empire, and the total collapse of the Russian Empire. WW2 obliterated a century of industrial development and squandered a generation of young people on a pointless pissing contest, only to hand the continent to a pair of foreign superpowers.

      The US came out ahead in both wars primarily because they were the last to join and the only ones to escape virtually unscathed.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 hours ago

          We exported fascism into Europe initially. America has a long and horrible history of fascism, straight back to the colonial era. By the early 20th century, guys like Henry Ford were quite literally churning out the textbook definition of antisemitism (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and shipping it all across the Old World, to stock the furnace of racial animus and ramp the continent up into a second world war.

          Then we harvested the remnants of fascism back into our own country after German Nazism failed. The open-borders policy extended to German military and science officers was a shocking reversal relative to our naked hostility towards Jewish refugees and other European dissidents in the run up to the wars.

          We weren’t destroyed by fascism. We were its wellspring. We sent it out abroad, like the seeds of an evil dandelion, and then we reaped what we’d sown when those seeds blossomed.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 hours ago

        The political inclinations of monarchist Germany weren’t anything to brag about. The German Colonial Empire was just as racist, vulgar, and blood drenched as anything the rest of the continent produced.

        Nazis brought the imperial tendencies home to Berlin. They didn’t invent them from whole cloth.

  • thisisbutaname@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Well, not to defend the nazis or anything, but they did manage to make considerable amounts of damage and it took multiple great powers working together to beat them back.

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Yes, they were beaten by a group of different people who let anyone join.

      Nazis were literally defeated by diversity and inclusivity.

    • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      ·
      10 hours ago

      That’s how Fascists work though. They pick fights with bigger and bigger opponents – because they’re invulnerable, you see – until they lose. Their economy was absolutely insane, and required flat out pillaging their neighbours. Eventually your neighbours are too big to pillage.

      • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Isn’t that not just an imperialistic trait, not necessarily a fascistic one? Franco’s Spain didn’t collapse, while it was still very much fascistic.

        All the while, this trait is very much applicable to the Roman, Ottoman, Soviet or US empires.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          Historians debate just how fascist Franco was. Hell, Orwell wasn’t even quite sure, and he was very open about the fact that he went to Spain to kill a fascist.

          Edit: a choice passage out of Homage to Catalonia, emphasis added:

          But there were several points that escaped general notice. To begin with, Franco was not strictly comparable with Hitler or Mussolini. His rising was a military mutiny backed up by the aristocracy and the Church, and in the main, especially at the beginning, it was an attempt not so much to impose Fascism as to restore feudalism. This meant that Franco had against him not only the working class but also various sections of the liberal bourgeoisie—the very people who are the supporters of Fascism when it appears in a more modern form. More important than this was the fact that the Spanish working class did not, as we might conceivably do in England, resist Franco in the name of ‘democracy’ and the status quo; their resistance was accompanied by—one might almost say it consisted of—a definite revolutionary outbreak. Land was seized by the peasants; many factories and most of the transport were seized by the trade unions; churches were wrecked and the priests driven out or killed. The Daily Mail, amid the cheers of the Catholic clergy, was able to represent Franco as a patriot delivering his country from hordes of fiendish ‘Reds’.

          And as a side note, the Daily Mail has been terrible for a long, long time.

    • tibi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Also, they successfully occupied most of the countries in western and central Europe. It’s only when they tried to expand into Russia that the war started. If they didn’t pick a fight with the russians, the Third Reich would have lasted much longer.

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      I won’t say Finland or Thailand were great powers but Japan had a decent showing so it’s not like they were alone

      Though it really only took USSR to beat Germany

      • Cypher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 hours ago

        The USSR was only in the fight thanks to lend lease and even Stalin admitted as much.

        • 1SimpleTailor@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Bingo. American industry, British intelligence, and Russian Blood won the war in Europe. It was always a combined effort, and anyone claiming one power could have won alone is talking nonsense.

          With American supplies, the USSR might have been able to defeat Germany without the Allies sending ground forces into Europe. However, there’s no way the Red Army could have defeated both Germany and Japan alone. The United States was the major force in the Pacific theater.

      • hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        I think a major part of getting “beat” is they fought the USSR in the east and simultaneously the USA and UK in the west. I mean the war against Stalin wasn’t going super smoothy. But it went on since 1941 already. And it really went south for the nazis when the USA joined WW2.

        • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          53 minutes ago

          Outside of industry the US didn’t impact much

          The Western Front was going to be won without them due to German troop and supply limitations

          The US war effort was the Pacific and preventing the USSR from taking all of Germany (Allies made it in time)

    • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      They won many wars in a row without losing. Then they just overdid it a lil bit at the end and got bonked. They couldve had a huge empire if they just stopped a bit earlier.

  • slaacaa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    107
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    Same with the confederacy:

    • lasted just 4 years
    • lost a war against the USA

    Yet their flags are waived around with pride 250+ years later. How perfectly normal

    • fckreddit@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Yeah, certain people can only feel superior to others to cover up for inferiority within themselves.

  • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    12 hours ago

    wasn’t even the last one standing on the losing side either. Japanese people are better than the master race?

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      There’s some Nazi “history” about how the Japanese were some long lost Aryan tribe. Being post-truth is flexible that way.

    • UwUhugger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      13 hours ago

      U mean a druggy?

      Everyone used to consume inorbitant amounts of hard drugs! Thats the charm of the time!

      Or like are you to implying the narrative of nazi generals? That the war would have been won tups if Hitler didn’t meddle? ‘Cause thats also not true! The war rememtos are complete lies meant to convince nato to hire them as advisers, which they would have anyways. If things were to shit the fan with the ussr then they wanted the german militia…

        • UwUhugger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          U don’t think that the US would have been willing to settle for peace if the germans literally won every single battlefield faster? They could have by giving [author of the book] all the resources and by giving none to the competing gens

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Alternatively, those generals saw how badly things were going by late 1943/early 1944 and would push for a negotiated surrender. While those generals definitely did put all the blame on Hitler in their post-war memoirs to cover their own failures, Hitler was certainly to blame for continuing to fight until the Reds were almost literally knocking on his bunker door.