How (in)effective were the Waffen-SS?

>>15722 I've heard it was a pretty mixed bag, from some of the best to some of the worst.

>>15722 If you can't be bothered to read, then watch this: https://ytprivate.com/watch?v=w4RveXKfrIk But long story short, the Waffen SS was even more random than most regular armies when it came to the quality of their units, because it had everything from elite tank divisions to random foreigners equipped with whatever other units didn't need.

>>15722 >>15730 To clarify: the Heer also had this variety, but they had a wide breadth of average units with average results, so you mostly knew what to expect from them. The Waffen SS was a lot more hit-and-miss, but people only seem to remember the best moments of the toughest formations.

Would have it been possible for the Germans to simply surround Leningrad, build some very deep defensive lines around the city, and only keep enough forces in those lines to repel soviet forces trying to leave the city; and concentrate on pushing westward? A city full of civilians, but completely cut off from all reinforcements sounds like the kind of problem that will solve itself, especially if the soldiers trapped in the city get an order from comrade Stalin to break out at all costs, and so get slaughtered in pointless attacks.

>>19136 No, unless they can manage to convince finns of their plans and manage to take and hold lake ladoga.

>>19137 But that's what I'm speaking about. Reduce the number of soldiers directly sieging the city, and use those forces instead to push westward, so that the Russians can't just reinforce the city through the frozen lake.

>>19138 >>19136 That is what they should have done. The Germans had steamrolled quickly in their first year, especially in the open areas. The only way to "fix" Leningrad for the Germans is for them to have gone past it the moment they reached it as after winter the Russians had reinforced it far too much to be ignored when the Germans wanted to push another large offensive.

>>19141 Would have it also worked with Crimea? That is, block off the northern isthmus with static divisions, and instead drive toward Stalingrad and the Caucasus, then once they are in control of the Azov Sea they can also block off the Kerch strait, and then start attacking the peninsula.

>>19136 >westward >>19138 >westward Damn, it wasn't even that late when I wrote these posts, and yet I managed to fuck it up twice. Push eastward obviously, maybe to the point that the link between Arkhangelsk and Moscow is cut.

Was the decision to invade Norway prior to the eternal Anglo a mistake?

>>19146 If the Anglo-French forces manage to get into Sweden through Norway, then Germany will suddenly gain two allies, even if they are not the most willing. If they manage to knock out of France before the lack of Swedish ore becomes a problem, and the Norwegian-Swedish-German forces can put up a good enough defence, then I imagine that point the frogs and anglos would pull out of Scandinavia, and it becomes a great success for Germany. They don't have to station 200.000 soldiers in Norway, as Norwegians themselves would be up in arms, ready to defend their own coastline (with some German assistance), and Germany would have significantly more volunteers from those countries. On the other hand, Norwegians might not be that fond of the idea of Germans using their fjords as they see fit, but not being able to hide a battleship or two there is not the greatest tragedy if we compare what they gain. They might also be able to influence the 'merican public, if they can make them forget about Denmark and the Low Countries, so that Average Joe thinks that this is just one more European war that has nothing to do with him, not some ultimate fight between liberty and tyranny. But again, it's also possible that they lose Scandinavia, Denmark gets counter-invaded, and the war ends with an early German defeat. But that doesn't seem that likely to me.

>>19147 That is a nice fantasy, but not possible considering the lukewarm resistance of Norway against Allied(British) Aggression. Germany hadn't defeated France and was expecting a much longer battle, for that Germany needed Norwegian Iron to produce war material. There is also the fact that the Norwegian Royals were Pro Jew and Norwegian Ambassadors were hauling Jewisch Refugees into the country.

>>19149 Would southern Norwegian civilians and army regiments be willing to accept German "help" for resisting the traitorous Judeo-british Imperialists should Haakon VII cuck out and surrender? Would it make much of a tactical difference if the Anglos got to Narvik first?

>>19150 >Would southern Norwegian civilians and army regiments be willing to accept German "help" for resisting the traitorous Judeo-british Imperialists should Haakon VII cuck out and surrender? Difficult to say, the majority of Norwegian resistance was Cucks for the Norwegian Royals who fled to Britain for no reason. >Would it make much of a tactical difference if the Anglos got to Narvik first? They would be in range of most of Norways and Swedens iron mines at the time.

Was it an inside job?

what's the deal with the "Anti-Wehraboo" meme? i see a lot of fags complaining about people overplaying the effectiveness of the Wehrmacht and "Muh German Tanks", thing is these fags proceed to do the exact same thing by denying any sort of axis military accomplishmenta and assuring you that the axis forces were all de-facto mouthbreathers, and then jumping at anyone who dares to claim otherwise im bad at explaining shit so i added some screencaps of this type of retardation i really hate how much fucking propaganda has been festered about WW2 to the point where i don't even know where to go or what accounts to trust to know what the fuck actually happened and how could der unkel Adolph have actually won his crusade to unfuck the world

>>20443 >what's the deal with the "Anti-Wehraboo" meme? The power of the internet unravelled decades of one-sided propaganda (or more like two-sided if we remember that both sides used ww2 as part of their narrative during the Cold War), and now we have an unprecedented amount of people arguing about it everywhere, but mostly between people whose arguments are fuelled by feeling and ultimately lead nowhere. >i don't even know where to go or what accounts to trust to know what the fuck actually happened There are reputable historians who are only interested in the truth, and they are slowly working their way through everything that is publicly available. But most of the important stuff are buried in archives, and they aren't the kind of documents that simply tell you that everything we have ever known is wrong, and this is the ultimate truth. Instead it's about reading war diaries, reports, handbooks, and other such documents, and re-establishing the greater context piece-by-piece. It's a slow process, and we don't even know if we are at just the beginning, or if we have already went through a significant chunk of them. Also, many documents are still secret, e.g. the public is only about to get access to British secret documents from the very beginning of ww2. >and how could der unkel Adolph have actually won his crusade to unfuck the world You won't get a step-by-step guide for that, but the most likely answer is that attacking the USSR with Bongistan still in the fight was a fatal mistake. As I wrote before, I suspect bong diplomatic and secret services managed to convince Hitler and his inner circle that the average Englishman only hated two things in this world: communism, and the war against their fellow Aryans. So they fully expected the British people to oust Churchill and join them in the fight against Bolshevism if they prove that they really mean it. And we know how well that worked out.

>>20443 What germans did in WW2 isn't that weird or rare in history but because people don't know history they think Germany were doing something great and they try to undermine it because nazis not being the marvel villains with infinity soldiers is against their fiction based worldview. For the C**ST employee that is reading this post, i don't defend national socialis nor one of them. I just stated facts about the misinformation about WW2.

>>20443 It's the swing of the pendulum, tends to happen with that sort of issues, stuff get overplayed then underplayed and so on, something as controversial as ww2 will take a long time to reach a reasonable consensus. But we shouldn't forget either how recent internet purges have silenced the more wehrhaboo side of the internet while empowering the opposite.

>>20443 Also, those people in the replies are correct

>>20443 Schrödinger's baddy. They are out to conquer the whole world while menacingly laughing. But they are also inferior to ZOGbot Übermann heroes. What is to blame? Just look how much WW2 media has been astroturfed the last decade. If you're the average Anglosphere kid then you've played video game killing da ebil Nadzies and watched your favorite actor kill da ebil Nadzies, and obviously also consumed media where the ebil Nadzies won the war and turned the world into a dystopia! Let them fight the last war, they will get drafted and die somewhere in the Pacific.

>>20443 >anti-wheraboos It's because the wheraboos became a nucance to certain portion of the public with influence, and also simaltaneously decide to go off the deep end of sanity like 2020 Lin Wood/muh stop the steal tier. y. >>20458 >astroturfing Honestly, that is what actually got me to serriously review the American Civil War and the history on WW2 objectively and draw my own conclusions, so sometimes it backfires spectacularly. It is quite intresting how the nations pan out by 1939: >Krauts have good military doctrine, officers, lacking in resources, autistic kraut engineering still >French have shit for an armored force, wrong direction doctrinally, population demoralized >Soviets have probably the best doctrine, absolutely horrid officer corps and inititive >Burgers have everything but decent land doctrine, also muh supply lines >Japan on the verge of civil war again over IJN-IJA conflict with civvie liberals in the mix >China is a shithole but more manpower than zerg >Italy spent too much time fighting the Abyssinians to be of use >Poland still thinks they can pull a miracle at the Vistula >Bongs got a decent navy and thats about it just like US outsourcing to China >Sweeden poised to intervene in Finland possibly had the French/UK commenced R4.

>>20443 Just gonna drop this here.

If the Krauts close Gibraltar with Spanish help, successfully capture the Suez, set off an anti-Anglo Jihad in the Levant, capture Stalingrad and remove the Soviet Union from the war by early 1944 would they have the resources left to save Japan from unconditional surrender by churning out a fleet-in-being capable enough on paper to at least give the Allies reason to consider abandoning the invasion of the Japanese home Islands? Preferably so the Japanese Empire continues to exist postwar in a territorially reduced form without complete disarmament and no occupation of its political and legal system by burgers.

>>20480 Strelok, your scenario just ends with the nukes being dropped on Germany instead of Japan. Japan had zero hope of stopping the Americans when they decided the Japanese Empire was going to fall; not even a theoretical Super-Germany could have stopped that.

>>20480 Only 15% of the US' war production was tied down in the Pacific. It wouldn't be possible.

>>20506 Anon's impossible scenario would lead to huge allied casualties. So America would be hard pressed to push more troops on the European front or risk losing gains in the Pacific.

>>20510 The impossible scenario might lead to relatively less western front casualties with no Normany landings and most ground fighting happening between smaller concentrations of Allied and Axis troops in Africa after the Soviet Union's surrender, tough the Allies have the problem of being in a stalemate over western Europe in terms of airplanes but unable to contest regular Axis missile attacks on the UK. FDR was certainly bent on removing the Axis with no survivors, but I wonder if Truman's approval ratings could stomach Hitler ordering a reset of this twisted game by launching V2s carrying picrels filled with Sarin instead of Amatol at New York from submarines right on the eve of Operation Downfall, doubly so if it's in retaliation for a "war-ending" Allied nuclear strike in Europe.

I have a hard time believing that Roosevelt & co were such interdimensional shogi masters that they predicted how getting their old battleships sink at Pearl Harbor is the best idea ever, because aircraft are the future. However, it is quite obvious that they were preparing for a war against Japan that they wanted. Is it more realistic to say that they deliberately made Hawaii a naval base knowing that it might get attacked, but thought that it's fine, because even if they somehow lost everything they could just outbuild Japan; and the carriers being out at sea during the attack is just a matter of pure luck?

>>33266 Most of the USN's leadership didn't think the IJN could reach Hawaii without first taking the Philippines. Of the few who did, nobody thought they'd be able to sink battleships at anchor (Pearl Harbor was "too shallow for torpedoes" so surely a Taranto-style attack could never happen here).

>>20453 >long time to reach a reasonable consensus i don´t think this will ever happen, WW2 is a foundational myth, the entirety of the Cold War and as a result, the modern Pax Judaea we live in, is the result of the Axis defeat in WW2 if this narrative is contested in any way shape or form, it all collapses, they will never allow this to happen, in fact there is already a "Reasonable" consensus in the form of Leon Degrelle, who wrote extensive revisionist books on WW2, with the caveat that unlike most historians HE WAS THERE WHEN THOSE THINGS HAPPENED, and because of his peculiar position as both statesman and soldier you get a unique point of view that you can´t quite get from other war memoirs furthermore its getting worse lately, with the newfound "Myth of the clean Wehrmacht" maybe its an older thing, but i had never seen anyone blame the Wehrmacht or even German populace for the ebin nuhtzees, its probably just gonna get worse and worse with the orwellian twists like how the "Anti-Wehraboo" condemn Germany for warcrimes but then idolize bomber harris and downplay Dresden, or how many Anglo-Supremacists talk about "G*rms" and how versailles "Wasn´t enough" (check picrel, a bad example since its an old post from a shit place but still), this is only gonna get worse as the world gets more and more politicized and the modern world gets more and more out of control as the spiral of decay unravels faster and faster in a unrelated note, i read this on "Notes on the Third Reich, by J.Evola" his opinions aside, how feasable would it have been for Germany to go full eastwards?, no danzig or lebensraum memery, just trying to secure a bloc of nations to contest the Soviet Union akin to what the Kodoha wanted to do in Japan aganist the Soviets?

>>48003 >no danzig or lebensraum memery, just trying to secure a bloc of nations to contest the Soviet Union akin to what the Kodoha wanted to do in Japan aganist the Soviets? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire_(international_relations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitteleuropa I'm too lazy to give you the rundown, but long story short if the Germans had a Bismarck-tier statesman they could have leveraged their position to become the big fish of Europe, and then use their position to fight a proxy war against the USSR. But they didn't have a leader with enough foresight to realized that you can't create an empire that is supposed to stand for a millennium in little over a decade.

>>5403 No... declaring war on the USA, after Japan failed to instead attack the USSR from the east was the greatest failure that cause some German generals to question Hitler's sanity.

>>48027 Indeed, can anyone give me a rational reason for Hitler to declare war on the USA to support Japan's insane baited attack on Hawaii? Especially after Japan failed in their main Axis commitment (attacking the USSR at the same time as Germany) and was still fighting in China? I can only conclude that by this point Hitler had completely lost his sanity.

>>48068 The only reasonable explanation is that he wanted to wage unlimited submarine warfare, and that would have lead to the US declaring war anyway, so he wanted to skip to the part where his submarines stop all shipping on the Atlantic. That didn't work, of course, but if it did then it would have been a logical move. The more I think about it, the more it looks like that German higher-ups were simply way too optimistic about every single thing, to the point of outright insanity. Just like how they thought that if bombing London didn't defeat Britain then some expensive fireworks in the form of the V-1 and V-2 will surely do the job, even though they already knew from their own experience that bombing population centres doesn't work, and they also woefully overestimated the potential of those weapons.

>>48070 A tragedy for humanity and life on earth. That said, if Hitler had not declared war on the USA (and Roosevelt was mostly forced to focus purely on Japan), would that have been enough to carve out some sort of victory in Europe?

>>48073 At that point every convoy through the Atlantic would have American merchantmen and US Navy ships mixed in, just waiting to be torpedo'd so that Roosevelt can declare war on them. Japan simply wasn't a big enough fish to keep the US busy for a whole world war, because most of their land forces were committed at China, and they had no hope of winning the naval war anyway. Even if we somehow still remove 'merica from the picture as an active participant, their industrial might would have been still enough to have a serious effects, and the strategic blunders the Germans made in the eastern front is an other can of worms. The only way for Germany to win is to fight a completely different war, i.e. play ball with Stalin until Britain is forced to sue for peace.

>>48080 >At that point every convoy through the Atlantic would have American merchantmen and US Navy ships mixed in, just waiting to be torpedo'd so that Roosevelt can declare war on them. Wasn't that the case even before? But the Germans went to the effort to avoid the WW1 mistake they made. I suppose what I'm saying is that would the extra year (or maybe 2) Japan would potentially buy for Germany enough to defeat the USSR before (likely) having to face the USA directly?

>>48227 >germany defeating the USSR The niggers couldn't run a train through a fucking desert, there would be bread riots before they got to moscow

>>48260 Maybe Germany should have just gone NK-mode and focused on propaganda, superweapons, and spycraft (surely staging coup d'etats in places like Norway and the Netherlands would have been more effective). Pride always comes before the fall.

>>48283 I mean, if Hitler had sided with Nat.China over Japan in 1936, the US probably would have remained amicable to them if not outright siding with them. It wasn't until that point that US general opinion began to shift away from Germany; and had that have happened, there was a slight (but extant) chance that Churchill would decide not to antagonize the Germans in his quest for a glorious war to revive Britain, instead choosing to go after the Soviets, whom he didn't like anyway. We could have seen a timeline where the Allied Powers were the Americans, Germans, and the British fighting the USSR; and instead of being nominally allied with the European-front's antagonized party, Japan would have been truly isolated facing these Allies since the chance of them putting aside their differences with the USSR was zero. But Mr. Mustache rolled the wrong dice.

>>48289 Hitler would not have sided with China ultimately. Germany had a handful of colonies in Asia that Japan snatched up during/after WWI, but the League of Nations soured Japan who was treated unfairly and so in return they treated their German colonies they had acquired with a lot of respect, and (retired or captured) German military command was treated with a lot of respect by Japan as tutors following the war. Hitler saw Japan as a rising superpower while he saw China as the same dying Empire it had been when the Germans had helped invade it thirty years prior.

>>48283 This is the sad reality of war: it is simply a means to an end, and preferably you should engineer such a situation that you don't even have to commit your forces for a real war, just roll in, do and take what you want, and then deal with the diplomatic consequences in such a fashion that everybody is cool with it. So basically what Hitler did in Czechoslovakia. Of course, it was more the Bri'ish and the frogs not wanting to fight a war that enabled Germany to do it so smoothly, and then everything went to hell for them when they changed their mind due to Poland.

>>48003 >i don´t think this will ever happen, WW2 is a foundational myth, the entirety of the Cold War and as a result, the modern Pax Judaea we live in, is the result of the Axis defeat in WW2 >this is only gonna get worse as the world gets more and more politicized and the modern world gets more and more out of control as the spiral of decay unravels faster and faster pretty much this. this whole mess we're in is a direct result of the liberalism/communism winning the two world wars, and monarchy/fascism going down in defeat. We're obviously living in a time of decadence, and I'm hoping the rotting structure of the postwar liberal order can be toppled sooner rather than later, so that it doesn't metastatize into something even more dystopian. speaking of Evola, a good quote from the Metaphysics of War: >With no significant political forces opposing the conversion of our world into a universal marketplace, the conflict of our time is the struggle to retain one’s humanity in an increasingly artificial world. That is the only battle that retains any genuine significance from a traditional perspective. >>48289 I'm thinking that the conventional wisdom is correct, and invading Russia and China were blunders for Germany and Japan, respectively. Of course, they would've had to come up with alternatives for resource grabs, but I'm sure there were alternatives to wasting their strength on projecting force into Asia.

>>48640 >they would've had to come up with alternatives for resource grabs You mean like having a functional economy instead of descending into socialism? >Evola Lol I've never read him is he always such a sore loser?

>>48640 I think that's a major oversimplification of ~80 years of history considering all the factions that go into it. I've heard more compelling arguments that the internet was the undoing of the world as was previously known because of how it decentralized and thus disharmonized human conscious experience. For fuck's sake America was going to forgive Japan and by proxy Germany for the shit they were doing until China opened their big mouths and had a shit fit. Gonna blame that one on da joos too, brah? That China and Saudi Arabia after WWII are the only reason the kikes are in control now is somehow also part of the Jews' plans?

>>48289 >I mean, if Hitler had sided with Nat.China over Japan in 1936, the US probably would have remained amicable to them if not outright siding with them. The USA didn't join the world wars because they had been attacked or because they cared about any of the atrocities going on, but simply because the US leadership saw the opportunity to remove the European and Asian Empires as the major powers of the world and install themselves as the worlds hegemon. There could have been a clean solution to WW1, with one side dominating the other and removing them from the game, but the USA prevented that with it's Leage of Nation bullshit, basically preventing the British and French to capitalize from their victory over Germany in any meaningful way. Equally Russia was allowed to not collapse and to morph into the Soviet Union. When Hiter managed to steamrole Europe to the surprise of everyone, he unmade decades of work the USA had done, by presenting the possibility of a German Hegemony over Europe and by that extent all the European colonies in the world. By the time Pearl Habor happened, it didn't matter if Hitler supported Japan or not, because the USA were already working hard to remove Germany as the leading country in Europe.

>>48860 yes, I was oversimplifying, but I wasn't wrong in broad strokes. >internet Decentralization of thought began with printing press & movable type, the precursor to internet 500+ years ago, which directly led to the Protestant Reformation. The information revolutions brought many good things, and are not necessarily responsible for the malaise we're living through. >Jews I don't really want to be anti-semitic, but there's no denying that they have a strong overlap with all the ills of Liberalism.