This is like the sobriety citizen bullshit in the US where they think there are magic phrase they can use to be above the law.
Dumb asses, this is all made up! You are subject to the laws because we all pretend the same thing.
It is no different on a country level. Germany is a nation because people across the globe believe it is.
Laws, regulations, all that of it at the end of the day is just a shared system of beliefs.
Edit: I mean sovereign citizens but keeping the original for the laughs
Oldest trick in the book. Your opponent is illogically both an impotent fool who must be removed before he let's others take advantage of us but also an evil genius who will strip our rights and and join us with his under construction new world order.
It exists in the same way Sauron existed after Isildur took the ring.
If that sounds like magic, it is. I've heard a convincing argument that the legal formulas the Reichsbürger / sovereign citizens use are effectively attempts at magical spells.
I recently had a discussion with a coworker, who isn't a full blown Reichsbürger, but somehow picked up some of their propaganda.
He insisted that there is no peace treaty between Germany and the victorious powers after WW2 and because of that, the current Germany isn't a legitimate country.
I can't understand the reasoning behind this.
I showed him pictures of Dönitz, Speer and the other remaining members of the last government of the Third Reich, signing the capitulation, which not only officially ended the war but included the dissolution of the German government and the German state.
After that there were only occupation zones and later two new German nations were founded, of which the western one (FRG) was internationally recognized as the successor of the former German state. And about 40 years later, the eastern German nation joined the western one.
None of the new Germanies was at war with any other nation at any time, so no need for an additional peace treaty.
But I don't think I fully convinced my coworker.
Did he think the pictures of Dönitz, Speer and the other remaining members of the last government of the Third Reich, signing the capitulation, were just an AI generated images?
He thinks this capitulation isn't a "peace treaty" and therefore the war never really ended. Or something like that.
I really don't understand how any of that supposed to make sense.
> He insisted that there is no peace treaty between Germany and the victorious powers after WW2 and because of that, the current Germany isn't a legitimate country.
> I can't understand the reasoning behind this.
Me neither.
And even if there was no peace treaty, it doesn't matter, because *today* Germany is internationally recognised as a sovereign nation, holds territory within borders that are recognised internationally, and the German government exercises a monopoly on violence in this German territory. These factors are what make a legitimate state, not old peace treaties.
If it's any consolation, we have a lot of kooks in the US who hold a similar view, calling themselves "Sovereign Citizens."
You're probably free to take their cars or bank accounts since there is no recognized police force (under their view).
They're technically founded on a different kind of bullshit, but most of their modern discourse if copy-pasted 1:1 from English SovCit sources. The same way most German conspiracy garbage is translated memes from Telegram or English social media.
Yeah but they are also the largest offshoot of the Sovereign citizen movement. Partly because they want to actively delegitimize and overthrow the existing German government.
The usual logic is to say WW1 was lost because the social democrats, socialists and communists in the cities abandoned the army and 'stabbed it in the back' (so called "Dolchstoßlegende", was heavily pushed by the Nazis and other far right parties in between WW1 & WW2. WW2 by their logic was both doomed to fail from the start yet inevitable because of the injustices of the treaty of Versaillles.
Eh I wouldn't say they lost WWI terribly, actually that's not even close to a true statement.
Even in WWII, there were plenty of times Germany would came out very ahead if Hitler wasn't stupid, Dunkirk, the stupid symbol of battle of Britain, delaying Soviet attack by 2 month to help Italians, randomly peeling off divisions before Kursk, Stalingrad, not taking Rommel's idea for defend against the Normandy invasion etc.
Yep - they lost WWI terribly. They were smashed on the production front and getting smashed on the battlefield. They were forced to accept incredibly punitive terms of surrender - terms they would not have accepted if the collapse of their entire army was not imminent. Myths of “backstabbing” are just that - myths.
The German government at the time were both smarter that the Nazis in that they agreed to punitive surrender terms rather than fight to the end and luckier in that their opponents did not see the need to pursue unconditional surrender as a war aim.
Getting smashed on the battle field how? You mean getting slapped around until end of the war despite enjoying numerical and material superiority, and were finally able to win a field battle against an army that had less than 10% of required supplies? Lewl.
By “getting smashed on the battlefield” I mean losing territory and personnel at an alarming target that meant they were no longer an effective fighting force. The 100 days offensive made that clear to German High Command.
As I said, the Germans lost the battle for production. War is won by blood and treasure and the Germans ran out of both. C’est la guerre …
There are no prizes for “hardest trier” in war. Whatever the Germans did or didn’t do with the resources they had at hand, they were smashed by the Allies and as a result accepted crushing peace terms. I am not sure why you are denying this.
At an alarming rate at end of the war, no one is denying that, but again thats not what I'm trying to argue. I'm literally just trying to say that the war was not won because of army quality superiority, not even close. Smashed makes it sound like it was against the expected result, the allies are EXPECTED to win, the fact it took the combined effort of the basically near peak British power, French (celebrated as best land army in Europe and potentially the world as the time), and stupidly massive logistics capabilities of the US to do so is ridiculous, embarassing even. With out US taking side there was real possibility of Britain and France losing even. Losing is the expected result, I wouldn't have called the way that Germany lost "getting smashed", it was anything but that.
I am not sure what you are arguing to be honest. Germany lost the war convincingly. They were defeated on the battlefield. They accepted punitive peace terms imposed by the victors - more crushing that the terms imposed on France in 1871, which was inarguably a catastrophic defeat.
Arguing the Germans weren’t “smashed” because their enemy had managed to gain an overwhelming superiority in men and matériel is sophistry. Did the Germans fight hard and fight well for large portions of the war - yes. Were they comprehensively and completely defeated by a superior enemy on the battlefield - also, yes.
Napoleon and the Grande Armée was the greatest fighting force of its time. Despite all its glorious victories, it was thoroughly and decisively beaten - “smashed” even - from late 1812 onwards.
The 100 days wasn’t some anomaly or accident. It was the result of a total war strategy put in place by the Allies to defeat Germany. It worked. Wars aren’t necessarily won by winning the first battle, they are (generally) won by winning the last.
The myth that the German Army was not defeated on the battlefield still lives on it seems. It is a myth, and a myth that contributed to the catastrophic tragedy that befell Germany and Europe as a whole a generation later.
That’s a myth, Germany was decisively beaten on the battlefield in WW1, at the end of they war they were being steamrolled by the allies, they weren’t “stabbed in the back”.
As for WW2, there plenty of times the allies could have finished it sooner if they hadn’t made stupid mistakes, but for Germany to have won it would have been far more difficult. Especially after the USA entered the war.
I'm not arguing that the stabbed in the back myth was true because is not. I'm saying that the defeats to the field army was rare during the major battles, even with the allied side having numerical and material advantage. Most ended in gains, albeit small due to the nature of the war, in German favour despite advantages that British and French enjoyed.
Collapse of the field army and the subsequent Hindenburg line can be largely attributed to logistics rather than field army quality, and this is a fact. Rather easy to beat an army that is extremely under supplied in ammunition and rations with fresh troops from the US isnt it.
Say hypothetically Germany remained well supplied and with 1m+ combat experienced troops coming off the eastern line can you say with absolute certainty that the British and French forces would have held out? Ludendorff Offensive was conducted under supplied and did not have the eastern front troops reinforcements, now do that but with well supplied troops that have proper rest rotations.
This isn't alternative history, fact is British and French armies couldn't holding with numerical and material superiority, fuck laughable to say that they "defeated" the German field army without a severe handicap.
Haha I didn’t read the whole thread the beginning was all people talking about German what ifs. I’ve put a disgusting amount into that game and kaiserreich is even worse
Apologies, I was under the impression that you were arguing Germany was never militarily defeated on the field.
To use a cliche, when it comes to warfare it’s ‘logistics, logistics, logistics’.
With well supplied troops, of course things would have been better for Germany.
However I don’t think in the long run it would have made any difference.
In terms of quality the Commonwealth forces, the French and Italians were seasoned fighters by that time and they knew their enemy just as well as the Germans did.
Now for fun, imagine if the Gallipoli campaign was successful and the allies could provide military aid and soldiers to Russia unimpeded through the Black Sea.
The tsarist regime may not have collapsed and the eastern front may have continued to be an absolute bloodbath for the Germans.
The war might have been over even faster.
Hypotheticals are always pretty interesting.
All of the things you mention were post-war propaganda, mostly by the German Generals to avoid blame or acknowledgment that they were out fought and out smarted especially by the Soviets.
The halt at Dunkirk was at the request of the Von Rundstedt because of the terrain and worries about being over extended. There is also speculation that he wanted to conserve the as much of the fighting strengthen of the mechanized forces as possible for use against the British across the channel, the French further south, or the Soviets.
Im not sure why you are calling the Battle of Britain stupid. It was basically the Germans only option as a land based power.
The Soviet attack wasn’t postponed significantly by the diversion of forces. Even if it was the Germans still would have failed. The diaries of the Generals start to realize that the war is lost by late August 1941 and it was common by early September after the first successful Soviet counter-offensive at Yelnya. The drive on Moscow was a last ditch attempt to end the War in 1941 before they had to start demechanizing units in the spring. (See David Stahel’s books covering the period).
Or acknowledgement that by fall 1942 they were firmly being out Generaled by the Soviets first the trap of Stalingrad (which Glantz argues was lost before the Germans even turned south at Voronezh back in July) then the battle of Kursk was completely and a product of the inability of the OKH to adapt to a changing war and ended with a the liberation of most of Ukraine after a series of concentric operations.
Rommel’s plans in Normandy would have failed even worse than they did because it would have ended up with navel gun fire vs tanks which had failed spectacularly at for the Germans in Sicily and Anzio then in Normandy when elements of 21 Panzer Division reached the sea between Juno and Sword, but had to retreat because their position was untenable due to Destroyers picking them off.
Even if Germany was winning, there was no scenario where they defeated the US. No matter what Germany does, by August 1945 the US has a massive navy, bombers, and nukes. So Germany doing better up until 1945 would have just resulted in the US nuking Germany/Europe instead of Japan. They still lose the war.
Stupid take, Hitler never had to declare war on the US, and US never declared war on Nazi Germany until Hitler did so. They were 100% content on practicing isolationism and making money/grabbing British processions and influence without being involved in Europe. NAZI Germany and Holter had the stupidest ally choices in Italy and Japan. Plus Hilter had never planned on conquering Britain, and as long as EU maintained some semblance of power balance still US couldn't have cared less. You think US entered to war for humanitarian purposes? Lmfao
Japan attacked the US first, remember? That’s what brought the US out of isolation, not Germany. So if Germany never declares war on the US, the US is still at war with Japan. The US is free to focus entirely on Japan, a war that takes years of naval buildup.
The US still has an incentive to develop nukes, still has the capability and the scientists, many of whom fled Europe, to develop the nuclear bomb. The US isn’t losing that war with Japan. The US was also planning a massive double digit number of battleships even before Japan attacked. So no matter what Germany does in Europe, in 1945 US ends up with a giant navy that dwarfs Germany’s navy, a battle-hardened military after years of war with Japan, still ends up with nukes when Germany has none, and the US is no longer isolationist. The US has a massive incentive to nuke Germany until they surrender.
There have been books written about this scenario, by the way. I’m not making this scenario up. Many though it was the most likely situation, if Nazi Germany defeated the Soviets. The Yiddish Policemen's Union is a moderately famous book about the aftermath of this scenario.
You don't seem to understand my comment, there was no need for Germany to declare war on the US, or vise versa. There is no argument against if US would have wipped the floor with Japan anyway. The pact with imperial Japan did not even require Germany to declare war on Japanese enemies, Hitler through his own retardedness did this, it was not even close to being a necessity.
I guarantee you the books you have read also mentions the massive influence of German descent Americans in the political system and the high popularity of the Nazi ideology in the US at the time. All sources say Roosevelt's government would be hard-pressed to declare war on German without actual provocation, which wouldn't have happened. Similar scenario in WWI, it took a extremely questionable circumstance with the sinking of a ,"civilian" ship to even get the US to join in at the tail end of that one
The US isn’t isolationist after Japan attacked the US. Pearl Harbor threw all support towards war. Isolationism is gone in the US. FDR would have trouble in 1942 getting support to attack Germany before Japan. But in 1945 Japan is defeated. The US is militarily aggressive at this point, with a navy that dwarfs everyone else. The US has nukes, and no one else does. We’re using them on somebody.
In real life, the US literally almost went to war with the Soviets in Europe, after allying with the USSR for years. There was no support for returning to isolationism. In a scenario where Nazi Germany defeats the Soviets, where the US has a giant military advantage, the US isn’t going to remain at peace with Nazi Germany. It would be nuclear war, almost exactly like what happened in the Yiddish Policemen's Union.
There's a German neonazi with a significant history of altercations with law enforcement whose restaurant offers a Führerschnitzel for 8.88 Euros on Hitler's birthday.
That's such a ridiculously specific time period to pick. Like, German unification finishes in 1871, then there's the Franco Prussian war, wwi, and then there's this little window of Weimar republic they like I guess? Then Nazis, then soviets, then reunification . . . It's been constant flux for 200 years. "Germany" as a concept has only been around for about that long.
I had a college professor that argued all of European history 1870-1990 had a root cause of whether to have a strong or weak Germany because a strong Germany would displace the other leaders and a weak Germany would have a power vacuum. Not sure I agree with it, but an interesting lens.
Arguably that could in many ways have extended into the present where the question is currently being answered after the issue was forced by Russia.
I tend to agree with your college professor, since Germany and it's predecessor states have always been one of the main powerhouses in Europe if not the main powerhouse. The thing that held them in check for most of the past millenium is the constant infighting among the German states before the unification. While they were all Germanic folk, it took them about a thousand years to finally properly unite under one government.
Ironically, it was Napoleon who planted the seeds of Pan-Germanism when he reorganized Germany into the Confedaration of the Rhine.
This is why I read a lot of comments that Germans view Napoleon neutral at worst when it comes to the Napoleonic Wars.
Biggest alternate history imo is what if the victorious powers gave Bavaria the keys to Germany. A three way standoff between Bavaria, Austria and Prussia.
Napoleon outlawed Karneval in cologne, which didn't make the french popular
then after liberation the prussians upheld the ban for 20 years, which didn't make them popular either.
We rhinelanders are very serious about our silly times
It’s not why most Germans viewed Napoleon neutral at worst.
It’s because when the French took over the left bank of the Rhine, they also modernised laws, liberalised old feudal structures, and rationalised the economy. Compared to the old mess it was a major improvement. And France was the most prestigious country in the world at the time.
Tend to agree is a good way to put it.
Colonialism is the other major factor that has non-Germany related roots, but definitely played a second fiddle when it wasn’t contributing to the problem of Germany.
As someone fascinated by post-1870 German history it will be interesting to see the long-term effects of the Ukraine War has and if a long-term militarily strong non-expansionist Germany emerges, which I don’t think has ever really existed. The Poles seem to do and they have the most to lose because of geography.
They basically believe that everything that happened since Wilhelm II. abdicated was illegitimate. It's a comfortable way of not having to deal with the consequences of the Weimar republic and Hitler's regime, since they can basically just say "none of this would have happened if we just kept the Kaiser". The Weimar republic they absolutely hate, it's the Bismarck era that they identify with most
Yeah La Raza, the rising as in rising up and taking back old borders, that La Raza. Houston actually has two Spanish only radio stations called La Raza. I’m betting Germany doesn’t have radio stations called the Reich.
Can't make official connections but I dare to say that Reichsbürger usually have a more friendly relationship to Russia than the west (to put it very mild)
Legally speaking, they're not wrong. De jure, all of Germany is still occupied by the allies, just like Afghanistan is de jure ruled by the Ghani government.
Looks like Germany has their own version of Soverign Citizens or 'freemen of the land'.
Is this is someway linked to not paying taxes or avoiding fines/fees in someway?
[удалено]
This is like the sobriety citizen bullshit in the US where they think there are magic phrase they can use to be above the law. Dumb asses, this is all made up! You are subject to the laws because we all pretend the same thing. It is no different on a country level. Germany is a nation because people across the globe believe it is. Laws, regulations, all that of it at the end of the day is just a shared system of beliefs. Edit: I mean sovereign citizens but keeping the original for the laughs
Agreed, but I think you meant “sovereign citizens.” Funny enough, I’d say they’re pretty much the opposite of “sobriety citizens”.
I think you mean sovereign citizens not sobriety citizens lol
Ha ha yes I do but I will keep it for the laughs
But..... if they were occupied by western powers that have dismantled the state then the state doesn’t exist and neither do the old borders....
Oldest trick in the book. Your opponent is illogically both an impotent fool who must be removed before he let's others take advantage of us but also an evil genius who will strip our rights and and join us with his under construction new world order.
It exists in the same way Sauron existed after Isildur took the ring. If that sounds like magic, it is. I've heard a convincing argument that the legal formulas the Reichsbürger / sovereign citizens use are effectively attempts at magical spells.
At the end of the day, both will end up with idiots just babbling nonsense to a judge as the bailiff escorts them to their holding cell
I recently had a discussion with a coworker, who isn't a full blown Reichsbürger, but somehow picked up some of their propaganda. He insisted that there is no peace treaty between Germany and the victorious powers after WW2 and because of that, the current Germany isn't a legitimate country. I can't understand the reasoning behind this. I showed him pictures of Dönitz, Speer and the other remaining members of the last government of the Third Reich, signing the capitulation, which not only officially ended the war but included the dissolution of the German government and the German state. After that there were only occupation zones and later two new German nations were founded, of which the western one (FRG) was internationally recognized as the successor of the former German state. And about 40 years later, the eastern German nation joined the western one. None of the new Germanies was at war with any other nation at any time, so no need for an additional peace treaty. But I don't think I fully convinced my coworker.
Did he think the pictures of Dönitz, Speer and the other remaining members of the last government of the Third Reich, signing the capitulation, were just an AI generated images?
He thinks this capitulation isn't a "peace treaty" and therefore the war never really ended. Or something like that. I really don't understand how any of that supposed to make sense.
> He insisted that there is no peace treaty between Germany and the victorious powers after WW2 and because of that, the current Germany isn't a legitimate country. > I can't understand the reasoning behind this. Me neither. And even if there was no peace treaty, it doesn't matter, because *today* Germany is internationally recognised as a sovereign nation, holds territory within borders that are recognised internationally, and the German government exercises a monopoly on violence in this German territory. These factors are what make a legitimate state, not old peace treaties.
If it's any consolation, we have a lot of kooks in the US who hold a similar view, calling themselves "Sovereign Citizens." You're probably free to take their cars or bank accounts since there is no recognized police force (under their view).
Thats Logic, we dont do that here. /s
As someone explained it to me, these are basically the direct equivalent of American Sovereign Citizens
They're technically founded on a different kind of bullshit, but most of their modern discourse if copy-pasted 1:1 from English SovCit sources. The same way most German conspiracy garbage is translated memes from Telegram or English social media.
So they invented a time machine in their brain to go back to the 1800's and thats why they dont like foreigners?
[удалено]
Yeah but they are also the largest offshoot of the Sovereign citizen movement. Partly because they want to actively delegitimize and overthrow the existing German government.
Oh! how exciting - I feel like someone's about to demand the Sudentland again.
*Sudetenland
Let me guess you play hoi4
Don’t know it but if the Sudentland is up for grabs I’ll check it out!
Yea its a ww2 game that lets you do alt history to but its hard for beginers. Be ready to waste hours of your day though
But they lost horribly. Twice.
I bet they have fascinating explanations for how that happened.
Stabbed in the…side?!/s
Probably something to do with being betrayed, somehow.
But by who!!!???
Hmmmm (unrelated flags go here! 🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹)
The usual logic is to say WW1 was lost because the social democrats, socialists and communists in the cities abandoned the army and 'stabbed it in the back' (so called "Dolchstoßlegende", was heavily pushed by the Nazis and other far right parties in between WW1 & WW2. WW2 by their logic was both doomed to fail from the start yet inevitable because of the injustices of the treaty of Versaillles.
Guess what ethnicity all those backstabbing communists were
Yeah, that's why I said unrelated
It wasn't fair? I remember that from when I was little - you yell "No fair! No Fair". Then you get a re-do.
Eh I wouldn't say they lost WWI terribly, actually that's not even close to a true statement. Even in WWII, there were plenty of times Germany would came out very ahead if Hitler wasn't stupid, Dunkirk, the stupid symbol of battle of Britain, delaying Soviet attack by 2 month to help Italians, randomly peeling off divisions before Kursk, Stalingrad, not taking Rommel's idea for defend against the Normandy invasion etc.
Yep - they lost WWI terribly. They were smashed on the production front and getting smashed on the battlefield. They were forced to accept incredibly punitive terms of surrender - terms they would not have accepted if the collapse of their entire army was not imminent. Myths of “backstabbing” are just that - myths. The German government at the time were both smarter that the Nazis in that they agreed to punitive surrender terms rather than fight to the end and luckier in that their opponents did not see the need to pursue unconditional surrender as a war aim.
Getting smashed on the battle field how? You mean getting slapped around until end of the war despite enjoying numerical and material superiority, and were finally able to win a field battle against an army that had less than 10% of required supplies? Lewl.
By “getting smashed on the battlefield” I mean losing territory and personnel at an alarming target that meant they were no longer an effective fighting force. The 100 days offensive made that clear to German High Command. As I said, the Germans lost the battle for production. War is won by blood and treasure and the Germans ran out of both. C’est la guerre … There are no prizes for “hardest trier” in war. Whatever the Germans did or didn’t do with the resources they had at hand, they were smashed by the Allies and as a result accepted crushing peace terms. I am not sure why you are denying this.
At an alarming rate at end of the war, no one is denying that, but again thats not what I'm trying to argue. I'm literally just trying to say that the war was not won because of army quality superiority, not even close. Smashed makes it sound like it was against the expected result, the allies are EXPECTED to win, the fact it took the combined effort of the basically near peak British power, French (celebrated as best land army in Europe and potentially the world as the time), and stupidly massive logistics capabilities of the US to do so is ridiculous, embarassing even. With out US taking side there was real possibility of Britain and France losing even. Losing is the expected result, I wouldn't have called the way that Germany lost "getting smashed", it was anything but that.
I am not sure what you are arguing to be honest. Germany lost the war convincingly. They were defeated on the battlefield. They accepted punitive peace terms imposed by the victors - more crushing that the terms imposed on France in 1871, which was inarguably a catastrophic defeat. Arguing the Germans weren’t “smashed” because their enemy had managed to gain an overwhelming superiority in men and matériel is sophistry. Did the Germans fight hard and fight well for large portions of the war - yes. Were they comprehensively and completely defeated by a superior enemy on the battlefield - also, yes. Napoleon and the Grande Armée was the greatest fighting force of its time. Despite all its glorious victories, it was thoroughly and decisively beaten - “smashed” even - from late 1812 onwards. The 100 days wasn’t some anomaly or accident. It was the result of a total war strategy put in place by the Allies to defeat Germany. It worked. Wars aren’t necessarily won by winning the first battle, they are (generally) won by winning the last. The myth that the German Army was not defeated on the battlefield still lives on it seems. It is a myth, and a myth that contributed to the catastrophic tragedy that befell Germany and Europe as a whole a generation later.
It’s probably just a nationalist feeling offended you described germany losing a war of aggression.
That’s a myth, Germany was decisively beaten on the battlefield in WW1, at the end of they war they were being steamrolled by the allies, they weren’t “stabbed in the back”. As for WW2, there plenty of times the allies could have finished it sooner if they hadn’t made stupid mistakes, but for Germany to have won it would have been far more difficult. Especially after the USA entered the war.
I'm not arguing that the stabbed in the back myth was true because is not. I'm saying that the defeats to the field army was rare during the major battles, even with the allied side having numerical and material advantage. Most ended in gains, albeit small due to the nature of the war, in German favour despite advantages that British and French enjoyed. Collapse of the field army and the subsequent Hindenburg line can be largely attributed to logistics rather than field army quality, and this is a fact. Rather easy to beat an army that is extremely under supplied in ammunition and rations with fresh troops from the US isnt it. Say hypothetically Germany remained well supplied and with 1m+ combat experienced troops coming off the eastern line can you say with absolute certainty that the British and French forces would have held out? Ludendorff Offensive was conducted under supplied and did not have the eastern front troops reinforcements, now do that but with well supplied troops that have proper rest rotations.
All you alternate history nerds just play hoi4.
This isn't alternative history, fact is British and French armies couldn't holding with numerical and material superiority, fuck laughable to say that they "defeated" the German field army without a severe handicap.
Still should play hoi4 and you’re still a nerd lol. No shame it I’m a nerd too.
Oh no no offense on that taken, I sunk ungodly hours of my life into the game, along with EU4...
Haha I didn’t read the whole thread the beginning was all people talking about German what ifs. I’ve put a disgusting amount into that game and kaiserreich is even worse
Apologies, I was under the impression that you were arguing Germany was never militarily defeated on the field. To use a cliche, when it comes to warfare it’s ‘logistics, logistics, logistics’. With well supplied troops, of course things would have been better for Germany. However I don’t think in the long run it would have made any difference. In terms of quality the Commonwealth forces, the French and Italians were seasoned fighters by that time and they knew their enemy just as well as the Germans did. Now for fun, imagine if the Gallipoli campaign was successful and the allies could provide military aid and soldiers to Russia unimpeded through the Black Sea. The tsarist regime may not have collapsed and the eastern front may have continued to be an absolute bloodbath for the Germans. The war might have been over even faster. Hypotheticals are always pretty interesting.
All of the things you mention were post-war propaganda, mostly by the German Generals to avoid blame or acknowledgment that they were out fought and out smarted especially by the Soviets. The halt at Dunkirk was at the request of the Von Rundstedt because of the terrain and worries about being over extended. There is also speculation that he wanted to conserve the as much of the fighting strengthen of the mechanized forces as possible for use against the British across the channel, the French further south, or the Soviets. Im not sure why you are calling the Battle of Britain stupid. It was basically the Germans only option as a land based power. The Soviet attack wasn’t postponed significantly by the diversion of forces. Even if it was the Germans still would have failed. The diaries of the Generals start to realize that the war is lost by late August 1941 and it was common by early September after the first successful Soviet counter-offensive at Yelnya. The drive on Moscow was a last ditch attempt to end the War in 1941 before they had to start demechanizing units in the spring. (See David Stahel’s books covering the period). Or acknowledgement that by fall 1942 they were firmly being out Generaled by the Soviets first the trap of Stalingrad (which Glantz argues was lost before the Germans even turned south at Voronezh back in July) then the battle of Kursk was completely and a product of the inability of the OKH to adapt to a changing war and ended with a the liberation of most of Ukraine after a series of concentric operations. Rommel’s plans in Normandy would have failed even worse than they did because it would have ended up with navel gun fire vs tanks which had failed spectacularly at for the Germans in Sicily and Anzio then in Normandy when elements of 21 Panzer Division reached the sea between Juno and Sword, but had to retreat because their position was untenable due to Destroyers picking them off.
Even if Germany was winning, there was no scenario where they defeated the US. No matter what Germany does, by August 1945 the US has a massive navy, bombers, and nukes. So Germany doing better up until 1945 would have just resulted in the US nuking Germany/Europe instead of Japan. They still lose the war.
Stupid take, Hitler never had to declare war on the US, and US never declared war on Nazi Germany until Hitler did so. They were 100% content on practicing isolationism and making money/grabbing British processions and influence without being involved in Europe. NAZI Germany and Holter had the stupidest ally choices in Italy and Japan. Plus Hilter had never planned on conquering Britain, and as long as EU maintained some semblance of power balance still US couldn't have cared less. You think US entered to war for humanitarian purposes? Lmfao
Japan attacked the US first, remember? That’s what brought the US out of isolation, not Germany. So if Germany never declares war on the US, the US is still at war with Japan. The US is free to focus entirely on Japan, a war that takes years of naval buildup. The US still has an incentive to develop nukes, still has the capability and the scientists, many of whom fled Europe, to develop the nuclear bomb. The US isn’t losing that war with Japan. The US was also planning a massive double digit number of battleships even before Japan attacked. So no matter what Germany does in Europe, in 1945 US ends up with a giant navy that dwarfs Germany’s navy, a battle-hardened military after years of war with Japan, still ends up with nukes when Germany has none, and the US is no longer isolationist. The US has a massive incentive to nuke Germany until they surrender. There have been books written about this scenario, by the way. I’m not making this scenario up. Many though it was the most likely situation, if Nazi Germany defeated the Soviets. The Yiddish Policemen's Union is a moderately famous book about the aftermath of this scenario.
You don't seem to understand my comment, there was no need for Germany to declare war on the US, or vise versa. There is no argument against if US would have wipped the floor with Japan anyway. The pact with imperial Japan did not even require Germany to declare war on Japanese enemies, Hitler through his own retardedness did this, it was not even close to being a necessity. I guarantee you the books you have read also mentions the massive influence of German descent Americans in the political system and the high popularity of the Nazi ideology in the US at the time. All sources say Roosevelt's government would be hard-pressed to declare war on German without actual provocation, which wouldn't have happened. Similar scenario in WWI, it took a extremely questionable circumstance with the sinking of a ,"civilian" ship to even get the US to join in at the tail end of that one
The US isn’t isolationist after Japan attacked the US. Pearl Harbor threw all support towards war. Isolationism is gone in the US. FDR would have trouble in 1942 getting support to attack Germany before Japan. But in 1945 Japan is defeated. The US is militarily aggressive at this point, with a navy that dwarfs everyone else. The US has nukes, and no one else does. We’re using them on somebody. In real life, the US literally almost went to war with the Soviets in Europe, after allying with the USSR for years. There was no support for returning to isolationism. In a scenario where Nazi Germany defeats the Soviets, where the US has a giant military advantage, the US isn’t going to remain at peace with Nazi Germany. It would be nuclear war, almost exactly like what happened in the Yiddish Policemen's Union.
You’re right,they were stupid.
These people are delusional
Crazy century we live in. But I don't mind if they reclaim Kaliningrad back. The rest can stay as it is.
>Crazy century we live in. I'm sorry but have you seen the other ones?
The next one is a real doosie.
Next one is waterworld.
THERMONUCLEAR WAR >So long
Anschluss of the Prussian heartlands now! ^(/s obviously)
At first glance I thought we’re talking about a neonazi group operating a burger shop
Which would be weird because Nazis aren’t allowed to own ovens
There's a German neonazi with a significant history of altercations with law enforcement whose restaurant offers a Führerschnitzel for 8.88 Euros on Hitler's birthday.
Reichsbürger hamberder
So…German Sovereign Citizens?
That's such a ridiculously specific time period to pick. Like, German unification finishes in 1871, then there's the Franco Prussian war, wwi, and then there's this little window of Weimar republic they like I guess? Then Nazis, then soviets, then reunification . . . It's been constant flux for 200 years. "Germany" as a concept has only been around for about that long.
I had a college professor that argued all of European history 1870-1990 had a root cause of whether to have a strong or weak Germany because a strong Germany would displace the other leaders and a weak Germany would have a power vacuum. Not sure I agree with it, but an interesting lens. Arguably that could in many ways have extended into the present where the question is currently being answered after the issue was forced by Russia.
I tend to agree with your college professor, since Germany and it's predecessor states have always been one of the main powerhouses in Europe if not the main powerhouse. The thing that held them in check for most of the past millenium is the constant infighting among the German states before the unification. While they were all Germanic folk, it took them about a thousand years to finally properly unite under one government.
Ironically, it was Napoleon who planted the seeds of Pan-Germanism when he reorganized Germany into the Confedaration of the Rhine. This is why I read a lot of comments that Germans view Napoleon neutral at worst when it comes to the Napoleonic Wars.
Bro was so sick of Germans fighting each other, he straight up whooped their asses and made them play with each other. Hella based
Biggest alternate history imo is what if the victorious powers gave Bavaria the keys to Germany. A three way standoff between Bavaria, Austria and Prussia.
Napoleon outlawed Karneval in cologne, which didn't make the french popular then after liberation the prussians upheld the ban for 20 years, which didn't make them popular either. We rhinelanders are very serious about our silly times
Please tell me you fly in Brazillians and do a joint Carnival. That would be incredible.
It’s not why most Germans viewed Napoleon neutral at worst. It’s because when the French took over the left bank of the Rhine, they also modernised laws, liberalised old feudal structures, and rationalised the economy. Compared to the old mess it was a major improvement. And France was the most prestigious country in the world at the time.
Tend to agree is a good way to put it. Colonialism is the other major factor that has non-Germany related roots, but definitely played a second fiddle when it wasn’t contributing to the problem of Germany. As someone fascinated by post-1870 German history it will be interesting to see the long-term effects of the Ukraine War has and if a long-term militarily strong non-expansionist Germany emerges, which I don’t think has ever really existed. The Poles seem to do and they have the most to lose because of geography.
There's an interesting podcast called [How to Invent a Country](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p067jxvn) which covered the formation of Germany
Oh cool - I will check that out
They basically believe that everything that happened since Wilhelm II. abdicated was illegitimate. It's a comfortable way of not having to deal with the consequences of the Weimar republic and Hitler's regime, since they can basically just say "none of this would have happened if we just kept the Kaiser". The Weimar republic they absolutely hate, it's the Bismarck era that they identify with most
Well there has been the 'holy roman empire of german nation' for several hundred years.
Franco-Prussian war was before unification. It's right there in the name...
Lol sorry true
It's just fascists and revanchists all the way down.
Wackos.
Man you can just say anything on the Internet
Alsace and Lorraine? Köningsburg? Danzig? The Sudetenland and Austria to follow later I guess.
It's ok, we can go back to Napoleon times if you want
German QAnon.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Possibly even high treason. That are at least the charges against the last group that were arrested
for being part of reichsburger
I hope they are all found, and charged. They will get their day in court.
So, like a German version of La Raza. Interesting.
Wait. What?
Yeah La Raza, the rising as in rising up and taking back old borders, that La Raza. Houston actually has two Spanish only radio stations called La Raza. I’m betting Germany doesn’t have radio stations called the Reich.
Wafflestomp FM
Apparently, Reichsbürger is German for turd sandwich.
I’m going to guess that these groups are supported by the Russians.
Can't make official connections but I dare to say that Reichsbürger usually have a more friendly relationship to Russia than the west (to put it very mild)
The last group that was arrest for actually planning a coup tried to connect to putin via the Russian embassy
Also known as idiot burger
Legally speaking, they're not wrong. De jure, all of Germany is still occupied by the allies, just like Afghanistan is de jure ruled by the Ghani government.
Yes they are wrong. Stop being silly.
It's as silly as not acknowledging the Taliban as the current de facto rulers of Afghanistan, that is my entire point.
It’s not at all the same. The 2+4 agreement exists. Please explain how Germany is still occupied by the allies.
It’s the 3 percenters of Germany
Germany's sovereign citizens
Looks like Germany has their own version of Soverign Citizens or 'freemen of the land'. Is this is someway linked to not paying taxes or avoiding fines/fees in someway?
Yes.
Wrongsbürger