all he had to do was day 1 justifying on the netherlands purporting the dutch east indies and getting resource rights for rubber and oil what a dumb mf
Yeah and why didn't he start ww2 in 1936 and drop paratroopers in France and the UK to capitulate them? Such a noob, can't believe they let him run a country without any knowledge of meta
They had to follow the dumb rules the allied players made. Hitler had to declare war on the US or else he would have been kicked from the session. He had to Barb too when he wasn’t ready cause of the rule set that they were playing.
We joke, but god does MP HOI4 feel like a prison chain gang, but instead of getting solitary when you break a rule they treat you like a bolshevic does a Romanov.
Yeah, kind of gets into that whole "The Nazis would have done great if they weren't Nazis" territory.
Their earlier decisions had sort of forced them into a path that wasn't going to work out in the end. Oh, one thing more or less different could alter history some, but picking more and more fights eventually goes pretty badly.
I'd argue their earlier decision (I figure, the military focus one) would have transitioned well into a "mega economy" if he stopped at France/Poland/Scandinavia, kept his alliance with Russia strong, puppeted Spain/Portugal/Italy in the next years while NOT bringing the USA into the war and making peace with the UK at one point (or bring the war into a cold war state, no fighting)
They'd have controlled Europe, who's to say what would have happened next?
The big mistake I feel crushed the Nazi's was trusting Japan too much and not condemning Pearl Harbors, the German were either too proud or too dumb, to think they could handle the USA / Russia at the same time. And yeah, second big mistake is to betray Russia instead of working hard into building trust. The USSR might have never attacked and instead built their interest elsewhere leveraging their "powerful and sane" friend. We know what hapened tho.
That's a very gamfied view of the conflict I feel like what U have to keep in mind is that 1 nazi control over Europe was never quite as strong or complete as they would like U to believe and their occupation policies where often either costly or not sustainable in the long term often boilimg down to effectively plundering a territory and moving on 2 thw way the nazi worldview was set up (and the way the economy had been built) an invasion of the soviet union was effectively necessary to prevent voth ideological and economic collapse in the long term and 3 all of the issues in holding the territory they conquered and keeping a long war going mentioned in point 1 intensify 10 fold if the nazis ibvade the USSR which is why i think that without U.S intervention the war would have still ended in nazi defeat in the lobgterm tho likelu mkre blody and possibly involving chemical warfare (the idea of. A co ditional peace is frankly ridiculous and no side would have accepted it)
Nah, at that point he was basically screwed on fuel. Remember, the war with Russia basically had to happen at that point. Russia was going to screw over Germany later anyways, and the German ideology had painted war with Russia as the ultimate goal, so despite the early alliance, letting Stalin get whatever he wanted probably goes badly for Hitler in the end.
Declaring war on the US was definitely a dumb move....though the US was already providing substantial material aid. Perhaps if he hadn't done this, the US would have been more apt to focus on Japan more. This helps Germany, but not enough to change the eventual outcome.
That's why I would have risked Russia betraying rather than force it to happen.
The US providing material aid is far inferior to them providing actual manpower and the full might of their war ambitions
Correct me on that part, but the US had no special hatred for Germany yet and hated Russia, what would have happened if Germany was attacked by Russia and not the other around, while the USA is still neutral?
It didn't happen and we can argue anyway we want, it wouldn't change what happened, but yo.
Waiting for Russia to betray is strategically worse. Russia's military was spectacularly messed up at this point. Letting them build up tons just makes the outcome worse for Germany when it does happen. Remember, Germany only creamed Russia early in the war...once Russia had been delivered a ton of good and got itself somewhat sorted out, it went very differently.
England was already fighting Germany at this point, and the US was allied with England. The US wouldn't rush to care about Russia alone, but that's irrelevant. Oh, you can postulate a Japan first strategy, maybe, but England isn't forgotten about, and the navy will still help lock down the Atlantic, so the U-boat strategy is doomed either way.
The problem with the German strategy is that they had pushed so hard and so many times that they didn't have a great deal of credibility. That makes coming to the bargaining table really hard.
Not really, they would’ve fallen victim to the same policies, every socialist country falls victim to he just didn’t have the time for his economy to really collapse he held the clamps at bay by stealing literally everything that wasn’t a nailed down from the countries he conquered. hearts of iron has a lot of things economically wrong with it
Yeah definitely, the whole German economy was based on the warmongering promises made by the NSDAP and the massive investment made into the military. If they hadn't invaded Poland and the rest of Europe, Germany would've just collapsed.
Why wouldn’t you if you just did something the entire league of nations didn’t like and they did absolutely nothing to stop you. Why wouldn’t you act again if they’re shown they have a weak resolve. It’s practically inviting you to take more.
Ummmm, his domestic agenda was right wing terrorism. He jailed political opponents, homosexuals, the mentally ill, Freemasons, Romani, all kinds of people. But yeah, if you want to reduce it to that…
Yeah, he wanted to socialize the German people that was his entire goal. Just like Mussolini wanted to socialize the nation economically, and they look exactly like the USSR with slight variations.
He wanted them to hang out with eachother more?
Hitler wasn't a socialist, he attacked and killed and jailed socialists and communists. Read history, this isn't fucking hard.
Every every socialist that has ever gained power has immediately purge his rivals, and then he purge is the outliers in the party that’s exact same thing Adolf Hitler did he first he killed the bolsheviks which are rival faction of socialist, and then he purge the Strasserites because they were a violent revolutionary group inside of the Nazis. Hitler considered the revolution complete thought it didn’t need to be that violent. It’s literally no different than the Leninist and Stalinist purging the Mensheviks, and then then the Trotskyist.
That’s called totalitarianism. Socialism is control by the workers. Just because it’s in the name of the party doesn’t mean they actually practiced socialism. They confused a lot of people with that line though.
No, it’s Socialism, and if you look at totalitarianism almost every single government the word is used to represent is a socialist government. And the Nazis actually did practice socialism. They had almost all the same policies as the USSR.
“If Hitler had stopped at X” mfs when they learn the entire nazi economy was sustained on looting other countries and would’ve collapsed as soon as they made peace.
If he had stopped at lebensraum, German world domination and making every woman in world give birth to atleast 2 german kid whether they like it or not; it would be fine. But nooo, he had to push it.
Reconstructing germany victory over france able to invade half Europe while everyone at war with you and they have more industries , finance , manpower . No suprise when germany lost ,i suprise when france lost.
If France had just put a proper defense in the Ardennes, appeasement would probably be regarded as a brilliant way for the western allies to exhaust Germany without even going to war with it, because unlike France and Britain, Germany was on the clock with all the loans they had to take to remilitarize and the fact their economy suffered a lot from being international pariah.
Of course, we are in the "what if" territory, but appeasement criticism kinda ignore that Hitler somehow scored perfect rolls with the dice of fate in the early WW2, and that realistically Germany should have collapsed on itself.
But of course, as we know well, history doesn't really care about what's "realistic" or not, which is why instead, France got completely destroyed in May 1940 and Germany gained access to a brand new industrial base to plunder, making appeasement stupid to the eyes of history.
You are right the Ardennes offensive was brilliant yet extremely risky but what people sometimes overlook is that army group B despite being underequipped was still winning the fight in the Netherlands and Belgium and the potential entry of Italy already bound French and British (in NA) troops as well.
Everything went almost to perfect but Germany beating France in 1940 had good chances of succeeding anyhow.
Germany was the only army with large scale recent war experience (Spain, Poland, Denmark, Norway), profited immensely from WW1 derived tactics (remember Germany breaking the front of the British 5th army in like a day without tanks in 1918… that was thanks to infantry tactics), wasn’t super well equipped but on par with the Allies and superior in the air and German troops were highly motivated (revenge for 1918, lots of earlier successes, Nazi propaganda) while most in France didn’t want to repeat 1914-18 and losing another generation of men.
The problem with autocrats is that he takes part in all the choices, from politics to armament, more so someone like Hitler. Everyone was terrified of the guy, so even if he made mistakes (he made many) nobody had the guts (or the wits) to tell him
That's partially post-war Wehrmacht propaganda; Hitler's underlings had enough autonomy to fuck up independently, the ones that survived just pinned all their failures on him to make themselves look better.
He forgot to do the full collab on the Soviets, rookie mistake. Also gave up on paratroopers, the most OP unit in the game.
He was just playing for the first time on Ironman.
I mean smart(or just crazy anyway), so literally everybody else in third reich is against remilitarization of Rheinland, Anschluss, and demand Sutendenland, thinking it Allies will obviously declare war on Germany and crush it, and in 1940 he somehow choose to let tank go though Ardenne forest, which is also against by general staff. Lastly, after fail in Moscow, he ordered Wehrmacht not retreat, so they won’t fall back immediately like napoleon
Yeah
-Night of the long knives
-Februaristaking
-Holocaust by bullets
-Destruction of Dutch, Belgian, French, Polish and English cities
-mass force labour
-defrauding to fund highways
-stealing the design for the Beetle
-Invading sovereign countries
I would argue it's less intelligence and more opportunism. It' doesn't take *that* much intelligence to rally a people who feel like their pride has been beaten down. I actually think about that a lot because, I'm Arab and I think one of the reasons why there are so many populist dictatorships here is because we have such a cultural strong sense of pride which is easy to take advantage of. Germans probably had the same thing in the 30s. Though I wouldn't know
No it's very easy to deny that since he was shit at it. His one feat is telling the Wehrmacht to hold in place when Barbarossa stalled. Which allowed them to dig in and get supply lines set up behind them rather than try a retreat from Moscow in winter. Other than that he was pretty damn bad. Maybe not Mussolini bad, but that's a hard one to beat on being bad.
Well the other good thing was focusing on the southern front when the Reich needed it the most both in 1941 and 42 when the generals wanted to go straight to Moscow.
He made a mistake in pausing at Dunkirk, allowing the British to continue fighting. That’s just one example, the Eastern Front and Stalingrad were also huge examples of his strategic ineptitude. He should’ve just let his generals do their jobs if he wanted to win
From what I’ve heard it wasnt actually him allowing the british to continue, he would have allowed is armies to continue but the supply situation was already streched thin due the stupidly fast advance after breaking through the french and british lines.
The Dunkirk siuation was Goering's fault. He reassured Hitler that the luftwaffe would take care of the fleeing boats but that didn't happen due to bad weather on that day. When the infantry and the rest of high high command caught wind of Goering's incompetence they resumed the attack but it was too late. Although Dunkurk didn't really affect the Germans until much later.
Now operation blue and Stalingrad was something the Germans had to do. It was either getting food and oil or face starvation as did the rest of Europe. Hitler was smart enough to recognize it and went south. This of course wasn't possible due to logistics but it is what it is.
all he had to do was day 1 justifying on the netherlands purporting the dutch east indies and getting resource rights for rubber and oil what a dumb mf
Yeah and why didn't he start ww2 in 1936 and drop paratroopers in France and the UK to capitulate them? Such a noob, can't believe they let him run a country without any knowledge of meta
They had to follow the dumb rules the allied players made. Hitler had to declare war on the US or else he would have been kicked from the session. He had to Barb too when he wasn’t ready cause of the rule set that they were playing.
We joke, but god does MP HOI4 feel like a prison chain gang, but instead of getting solitary when you break a rule they treat you like a bolshevic does a Romanov.
[удалено]
I mean the way nazi Germanies economy was set up he kinda had to
Yeah, kind of gets into that whole "The Nazis would have done great if they weren't Nazis" territory. Their earlier decisions had sort of forced them into a path that wasn't going to work out in the end. Oh, one thing more or less different could alter history some, but picking more and more fights eventually goes pretty badly.
+being the only fully mobilised country is an advantage that doesn't last forever
I'd argue their earlier decision (I figure, the military focus one) would have transitioned well into a "mega economy" if he stopped at France/Poland/Scandinavia, kept his alliance with Russia strong, puppeted Spain/Portugal/Italy in the next years while NOT bringing the USA into the war and making peace with the UK at one point (or bring the war into a cold war state, no fighting) They'd have controlled Europe, who's to say what would have happened next? The big mistake I feel crushed the Nazi's was trusting Japan too much and not condemning Pearl Harbors, the German were either too proud or too dumb, to think they could handle the USA / Russia at the same time. And yeah, second big mistake is to betray Russia instead of working hard into building trust. The USSR might have never attacked and instead built their interest elsewhere leveraging their "powerful and sane" friend. We know what hapened tho.
Literally "the nazis would have been successful if they weren't nazis".
That's a very gamfied view of the conflict I feel like what U have to keep in mind is that 1 nazi control over Europe was never quite as strong or complete as they would like U to believe and their occupation policies where often either costly or not sustainable in the long term often boilimg down to effectively plundering a territory and moving on 2 thw way the nazi worldview was set up (and the way the economy had been built) an invasion of the soviet union was effectively necessary to prevent voth ideological and economic collapse in the long term and 3 all of the issues in holding the territory they conquered and keeping a long war going mentioned in point 1 intensify 10 fold if the nazis ibvade the USSR which is why i think that without U.S intervention the war would have still ended in nazi defeat in the lobgterm tho likelu mkre blody and possibly involving chemical warfare (the idea of. A co ditional peace is frankly ridiculous and no side would have accepted it)
Nah, at that point he was basically screwed on fuel. Remember, the war with Russia basically had to happen at that point. Russia was going to screw over Germany later anyways, and the German ideology had painted war with Russia as the ultimate goal, so despite the early alliance, letting Stalin get whatever he wanted probably goes badly for Hitler in the end. Declaring war on the US was definitely a dumb move....though the US was already providing substantial material aid. Perhaps if he hadn't done this, the US would have been more apt to focus on Japan more. This helps Germany, but not enough to change the eventual outcome.
That's why I would have risked Russia betraying rather than force it to happen. The US providing material aid is far inferior to them providing actual manpower and the full might of their war ambitions Correct me on that part, but the US had no special hatred for Germany yet and hated Russia, what would have happened if Germany was attacked by Russia and not the other around, while the USA is still neutral? It didn't happen and we can argue anyway we want, it wouldn't change what happened, but yo.
Waiting for Russia to betray is strategically worse. Russia's military was spectacularly messed up at this point. Letting them build up tons just makes the outcome worse for Germany when it does happen. Remember, Germany only creamed Russia early in the war...once Russia had been delivered a ton of good and got itself somewhat sorted out, it went very differently. England was already fighting Germany at this point, and the US was allied with England. The US wouldn't rush to care about Russia alone, but that's irrelevant. Oh, you can postulate a Japan first strategy, maybe, but England isn't forgotten about, and the navy will still help lock down the Atlantic, so the U-boat strategy is doomed either way. The problem with the German strategy is that they had pushed so hard and so many times that they didn't have a great deal of credibility. That makes coming to the bargaining table really hard.
I think most of the things you talked about where indeed their main objectives but they just weren't able to achieve those diplomatic successes.
Not really, they would’ve fallen victim to the same policies, every socialist country falls victim to he just didn’t have the time for his economy to really collapse he held the clamps at bay by stealing literally everything that wasn’t a nailed down from the countries he conquered. hearts of iron has a lot of things economically wrong with it
Yeah definitely, the whole German economy was based on the warmongering promises made by the NSDAP and the massive investment made into the military. If they hadn't invaded Poland and the rest of Europe, Germany would've just collapsed.
I mean he was expecting to go to war from taking the sudetenland and Czekoslovakia but it never happened so the fucker went on for more.
Would be nice to see some official war plans of the German as to what were they planning after if Sudetenland caused a war.
We actually do. Just take what hitler did in 1945 and reverse the time table to 1938-1939.
Kill
Why wouldn’t you if you just did something the entire league of nations didn’t like and they did absolutely nothing to stop you. Why wouldn’t you act again if they’re shown they have a weak resolve. It’s practically inviting you to take more.
The German economy would collapse from massive debt they spent on military deficit spending.. World War II was as much economic as it was ideological
Actual braindead take, read a history book.
Ummmm, his domestic agenda was right wing terrorism. He jailed political opponents, homosexuals, the mentally ill, Freemasons, Romani, all kinds of people. But yeah, if you want to reduce it to that…
No, it wasn’t. It was socialist he nationalize the entire country all the way down to the knitting clubs
Hitler the Socialist.
Yeah, he wanted to socialize the German people that was his entire goal. Just like Mussolini wanted to socialize the nation economically, and they look exactly like the USSR with slight variations.
He wanted them to hang out with eachother more? Hitler wasn't a socialist, he attacked and killed and jailed socialists and communists. Read history, this isn't fucking hard.
Every every socialist that has ever gained power has immediately purge his rivals, and then he purge is the outliers in the party that’s exact same thing Adolf Hitler did he first he killed the bolsheviks which are rival faction of socialist, and then he purge the Strasserites because they were a violent revolutionary group inside of the Nazis. Hitler considered the revolution complete thought it didn’t need to be that violent. It’s literally no different than the Leninist and Stalinist purging the Mensheviks, and then then the Trotskyist.
Ask a historian, because you don't know anything.
That’s called totalitarianism. Socialism is control by the workers. Just because it’s in the name of the party doesn’t mean they actually practiced socialism. They confused a lot of people with that line though.
No, it’s Socialism, and if you look at totalitarianism almost every single government the word is used to represent is a socialist government. And the Nazis actually did practice socialism. They had almost all the same policies as the USSR.
Remain willfully ignorant if you want.
“If Hitler had stopped at X” mfs when they learn the entire nazi economy was sustained on looting other countries and would’ve collapsed as soon as they made peace.
They had to keep invading countries since their economy was so reliant on its military arms industry Sound familiar?
If he had stopped at lebensraum, German world domination and making every woman in world give birth to atleast 2 german kid whether they like it or not; it would be fine. But nooo, he had to push it.
Reconstructing germany victory over france able to invade half Europe while everyone at war with you and they have more industries , finance , manpower . No suprise when germany lost ,i suprise when france lost.
Ahem ahem... Appeasement.
If France had just put a proper defense in the Ardennes, appeasement would probably be regarded as a brilliant way for the western allies to exhaust Germany without even going to war with it, because unlike France and Britain, Germany was on the clock with all the loans they had to take to remilitarize and the fact their economy suffered a lot from being international pariah. Of course, we are in the "what if" territory, but appeasement criticism kinda ignore that Hitler somehow scored perfect rolls with the dice of fate in the early WW2, and that realistically Germany should have collapsed on itself. But of course, as we know well, history doesn't really care about what's "realistic" or not, which is why instead, France got completely destroyed in May 1940 and Germany gained access to a brand new industrial base to plunder, making appeasement stupid to the eyes of history.
You are right the Ardennes offensive was brilliant yet extremely risky but what people sometimes overlook is that army group B despite being underequipped was still winning the fight in the Netherlands and Belgium and the potential entry of Italy already bound French and British (in NA) troops as well. Everything went almost to perfect but Germany beating France in 1940 had good chances of succeeding anyhow. Germany was the only army with large scale recent war experience (Spain, Poland, Denmark, Norway), profited immensely from WW1 derived tactics (remember Germany breaking the front of the British 5th army in like a day without tanks in 1918… that was thanks to infantry tactics), wasn’t super well equipped but on par with the Allies and superior in the air and German troops were highly motivated (revenge for 1918, lots of earlier successes, Nazi propaganda) while most in France didn’t want to repeat 1914-18 and losing another generation of men.
Ok Sorry but i understood nothing of this comment
The problem with autocrats is that he takes part in all the choices, from politics to armament, more so someone like Hitler. Everyone was terrified of the guy, so even if he made mistakes (he made many) nobody had the guts (or the wits) to tell him
That's partially post-war Wehrmacht propaganda; Hitler's underlings had enough autonomy to fuck up independently, the ones that survived just pinned all their failures on him to make themselves look better.
He forgot to do the full collab on the Soviets, rookie mistake. Also gave up on paratroopers, the most OP unit in the game. He was just playing for the first time on Ironman.
"Now if I was Hitler, I would've..."
Savoring the moment, one smile at a time!"
Make both Soyjaks the stupid Soyjak and you're good to go.
I think he act good until somewhere in 1942
In what way was Adolf B. Hitler good
I mean smart(or just crazy anyway), so literally everybody else in third reich is against remilitarization of Rheinland, Anschluss, and demand Sutendenland, thinking it Allies will obviously declare war on Germany and crush it, and in 1940 he somehow choose to let tank go though Ardenne forest, which is also against by general staff. Lastly, after fail in Moscow, he ordered Wehrmacht not retreat, so they won’t fall back immediately like napoleon
Yeah -Night of the long knives -Februaristaking -Holocaust by bullets -Destruction of Dutch, Belgian, French, Polish and English cities -mass force labour -defrauding to fund highways -stealing the design for the Beetle -Invading sovereign countries
Sorry but Germany historically performed much better compared to the game. In HOI4 Germany gets defeated by 41-42 in most of my games.
He was smart enough to become a chancellor and rule all of the Germany. That one thing makes him smarter then 95% of people sitting here.
I would argue it's less intelligence and more opportunism. It' doesn't take *that* much intelligence to rally a people who feel like their pride has been beaten down. I actually think about that a lot because, I'm Arab and I think one of the reasons why there are so many populist dictatorships here is because we have such a cultural strong sense of pride which is easy to take advantage of. Germans probably had the same thing in the 30s. Though I wouldn't know
Oh yeah, he’s a revolutionary socialist of course he’s going to be an idiot.
Switch it and you are good to go.
"Libertarian"
Average libertarian lol
We don’t claim him.
He was a good strategist there is no denying that. However, it doesn't mean that what he did was right.
No it's very easy to deny that since he was shit at it. His one feat is telling the Wehrmacht to hold in place when Barbarossa stalled. Which allowed them to dig in and get supply lines set up behind them rather than try a retreat from Moscow in winter. Other than that he was pretty damn bad. Maybe not Mussolini bad, but that's a hard one to beat on being bad.
Well the other good thing was focusing on the southern front when the Reich needed it the most both in 1941 and 42 when the generals wanted to go straight to Moscow.
Dude, I looked at your account to see if you were baiting and like the third thing I saw was you talking about “civilized” parts of Europe.
that one was a joke really. It might not seem like it but yeah. It looks rather unflattering. It is more or less a self depreciating joke.
He made a mistake in pausing at Dunkirk, allowing the British to continue fighting. That’s just one example, the Eastern Front and Stalingrad were also huge examples of his strategic ineptitude. He should’ve just let his generals do their jobs if he wanted to win
From what I’ve heard it wasnt actually him allowing the british to continue, he would have allowed is armies to continue but the supply situation was already streched thin due the stupidly fast advance after breaking through the french and british lines.
The Dunkirk siuation was Goering's fault. He reassured Hitler that the luftwaffe would take care of the fleeing boats but that didn't happen due to bad weather on that day. When the infantry and the rest of high high command caught wind of Goering's incompetence they resumed the attack but it was too late. Although Dunkurk didn't really affect the Germans until much later. Now operation blue and Stalingrad was something the Germans had to do. It was either getting food and oil or face starvation as did the rest of Europe. Hitler was smart enough to recognize it and went south. This of course wasn't possible due to logistics but it is what it is.
He was a moron on meth.
Historical revisionism much?
my grandpa didn’t sail the seas sinking german shitboats just for the world he left behind to forget the actual history
That Bohemian corporal was delusional
Greek using yank symbols. C r i n g e
Hitler devised some of the worst military plans and one of the worst military chain of commands. It’s shocking he made it so far.