Why Germany lost WW2?

[asianobserve]

You should be embarrassed. A nation founded on invasions and stolen land trying to give moral sermons to Germany about invasions. Very embarrassing indeed.

Such an ignorant version of history. Almost all major nations are founded on invasions or forcible annexation of smaller independent states or territories. There was no Germany before but a collection of smaller independent states that either out of threat or actial invasion were absorbed into the German state/empire. Same with England, Italy, Spdin, China, India with British help.

The last attempt of forcible annexation of independent states happened in WW2. During the Cold War the USSR employed a loser kind of terrotorial grab by forcibly enclosing Eastern European and Baltoc countries under its control. Or so we tgought. But Putin is trying to annex territory of other countries by force.

In any case, READ CAREFULLY and UNDERSTAND the history and birth of countries.

 

[Assassin 2.0]

India with British help.

Just a small correction when india got independence their were more than 300-500 princely state's which willingly joined india. Yes even kashmir.
So it was because of effort of sadar Patel rather than of british because they never wanted a united india and made pakistan in the first place to make sure their is a key partner in this region.
Only goa was annexed because Portuguese were not willing to leave.

 

[asianobserve]

Just a small correction when india got independence their were more than 300-500 princely state's which willingly joined india. Yes even kashmir.
So it was because of effort of sadar Patel rather than of british because they never wanted a united india and made pakistan in the first place to make sure their is a key partner in this region.
Only goa was annexed because Portuguese were not willing to leave.

Because they have gotten used to the Indian concept under the British. Otherwise, a lot of these smaller states would have remained independent had the British not colonized much of the Indian subcontinent.

 

[Haldiram]

Such an ignorant version of history. Almost all major nations are founded on invasions or forcible annexation of smaller independent states or territories.

So why get hyperactive when Germany did it?

 

[Assassin 2.0]

Because they have gotten used to the Indian concept under the British. Otherwise, a lot of these smaller states would have remained independent had the British not colonized much of the Indian subcontinent.

Which theory is this?
Freedom moments at the time of seeking india was throughout the india which ultimately bought people together even if the king form a alliance with state if people don't want we could have seen the fall of the nation within years just in the same way how Bangladesh fall down :biggrin2:
kings after partnering with india neither had the kingdom or any power under they liked The british rule better because they had power and legitimacy.

 

[captscooby81]

There is something called sanatana dharma which united this land from kashmir to kanyakumari yes few individuals would have called themselves kings to keep their wealth but common man was always united across the land even with so much language difference under the umbrella of sanata dharma , yes islamic invasion and abrahamic colonisation have damaged that unity to a great extent . Our official name is Bharat not just english "India"

Because they have gotten used to the Indian concept under the British. Otherwise, a lot of these smaller states would have remained independent had the British not colonized much of the Indian subcontinent.

 

[asianobserve]

So why get hyperactive when Germany did it?

Boy you better read the title of this thread before showing your ignorance.... but for your reference this thread is entitled "Why Germany lost WW2?"

In case your forcible entry into thread is already apparent to you, backread the posts on what has been discussed so far.

 

[Haldiram]

Boy you better read the title of this thread before showing your ignorance.... but for your reference this thread is entitled "Why Germany lost WW2?"

In case your forcible entry into thread is already apparent to you, backread the posts on what has been discussed so far.

The thread was seeking TACTICAL MILITARY details of Germany loss. They fought, you fought, they lost. Is that victory not good enough for you that you need to claim further moral brownie points and make it look like it was destined because you were the morally right party.

Wars are fought for land and influence. The US itself was doing EXACTLY the same morally reprehensible things you accuse Germany of doing..labor camps, forced medical testing, slavery, racism.

Neither parties was any more moral than the other. Morality has no role in victories (if your victory in WW was due to some divine moral decree, by corollary, was your loss in Vietnam and Afghanistan due to a moral deficit?). Spare us your moral sermons, stick to weapons and tactics.

 

[Haldiram]

Because they have gotten used to the Indian concept under the British. Otherwise, a lot of these smaller states would have remained independent had the British not colonized much of the Indian subcontinent.

We won our freedom by spilling Indian blood and unified our country with our own efforts. Contrary to what your propaganda projects, the Allies didn't unify India, their whole idea was to divide and rule. India would have never gotten freedom had Germany not weakened the Allies in Europe. Simultaneously the Russians had cultivated anti-imperialist revolutionaries in India to weaken British grasp over India.

No one in India believes the caricature of Hitler that the American propaganda machinery projects him to be. Hitler helped Indian freedom fighter, Bose, materially and morally when the Allies were trying to keep India under slavery for another century. Mein Kampf is a top seller in India. Continue to feel outraged, no one cares.

It was not the Allied powers but the Axis powers that helped liberate India. Do keep that context in mind before coming in here with your Fox News version of History.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

Almost all major nations are founded on invasions or forcible annexation of smaller independent states or territories.

It's limited to white western nations.

China captured unpopulated territories, India is an expended settlement. Case isn't different for USSR as it is also western origin country after all.

There was no Germany before but a collection of smaller independent states that either out of threat or actial invasion were absorbed into the German state/empire.

Germany was direct successor of the First Reich, the pan European identity.

The last attempt of forcible annexation of independent states happened in WW2. During the Cold War the USSR employed a loser kind of terrotorial grab by forcibly enclosing Eastern European and Baltoc countries under its control.

USSR also screwed Nazi Germany black and blue when Nazis weren't even letting Americans and Brits enter Europe.

Boy you better read the title of this thread before showing your ignorance.... but for your reference this thread is entitled "Why Germany lost WW2?"

In case your forcible entry into thread is already apparent to you, backread the posts on what has been discussed so far.

Well, I don't think his response anywhere unrelated or incorrect.

Germany chose to occupy the occupiers in process to haste it's ambitions which antagonized other western powers.

People beyond west (or people who don't worship west like you), don't find any difference between Nazi fascism or western imperialism because there isn't anything much logically at first place.

Other Euros have killed far more people than nazis. Nazis just lost it and imperialists got to teach their version of history.

Because they have gotten used to the Indian concept under the British.

No, Indian concept existed long before western people reached east.

It was either united under a single empire and whenever not, it was holding a EU kind of homogeneous identity ruled by native kings.

Indian emperors mostly neither struck beyond the region called India nor they used to let any enemy in. There were also common morals and rules of wars which were followed by all Indian kings.

Because they have gotten used to the Indian concept under the British. Otherwise, a lot of these smaller states would have remained independent had the British not colonized much of the Indian subcontinent.

Only provided that there was no other Maurya born to unite the people with same culture.

There was thing called Maratha empire that had decimated and pulverized mughals into its client states and was only decimated by British. In fact, Marathas won multiple times against British and were later taken down by crooks and deceitful treaties only. Had certain Indians wouldn't have backstabbed, British Raj wouldn't have been a reality. Nor the rise of Britain would ever have arrived.

 

[asianobserve]

The thread was seeking TACTICAL MILITARY details of Germany loss. They fought, you fought, they lost. Is that victory not good enough for you that you need to claim further moral brownie points and make it look like it was destined because you were the morally right party.

Wars are fought for land and influence. The US itself was doing EXACTLY the same morally reprehensible things you accuse Germany of doing..labor camps, forced medical testing, slavery, racism.

Neither parties was any more moral than the other. Morality has no role in victories (if your victory in WW was due to some divine moral decree, by corollary, was your loss in Vietnam and Afghanistan due to a moral deficit?). Spare us your moral sermons, stick to weapons and tactics.

You're getting tiresome boy. I don't know your background in history but it's not looking good. Anyway, there's no specific parameter on the limit of the discussion here on tge topic chosen. But just so you know, the Germans were prolific in tactical maneuvers and especially in counter-attacks. They could have won WW2 or st least bring it to a stalemate if not for Hitler's megalomania (he started micromanaging the war after the defeat of France and more so towards the latter part of the war). Second, on the strategic front, Germany was hampered by lack of competent allies. Hitler created enemies of all major powers too quickly when he did not have to, like declaring war on America (a gross understimation on Hitler's part) and premature invasion of the USSR.

And on the moral front, there's no equivalence boy between the NAZIs and the Allies (at least the Western allies). I do not have to elaborate to you on what I mean but Hitler's atrocities is only rivalled by Stalin and Mao.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

And on the moral front, there's no equivalence boy between the NAZIs and the Allies (at least the Western allies).

There is no difference between two. Both were mass murderers and plunderers. Sooner you realise it, better for you.

 

[Haldiram]

And on the moral front, there's no equivalence boy between the NAZIs and the Allies (at least the Western allies). I do not have to elaborate to you on what I mean but Hitler's atrocities is only rivalled by Stalin and Mao.

We lost more people in the Bengal famine than the fake number your Hollywood media keeps peddling about the Jewish holocaust. Leave alone knowing about it, you can't even point Bengal on the map.

You're a product of a nation that treats pop culture narratives as a substitute for hard historical facts.

 

[asianobserve]

There is no difference between two. Both were mass murderers and plunderers. Sooner you realise it, better for you.

According to your twisted history.

 

[angeldude13]

According to your twisted history.

History don’t belong to anybody cuckboii. While you choose to munch on your white massah cock, we the proud Indian see it just as a propaganda.

Much more heinous crimes were committed against people by these so called allies than nazis committed against Jews. A perfect example would be The Continent of North America and The continent of Australia where indigenous population were reduced to nothing. They tried to do the same in India but couldn’t succeed due to our huge population but none the less created artificial famines and took all our wealth.

You are a shameless cuckboii.

 

[thethinker]

Muricans used to send skulls of Japanese soldiers to their dear ones as souvenirs.

Humane folks these Allies were!

================================================================
Photo published in the May 22, 1944 issue of LIFE magazine, with the following caption: “When he said goodby two years ago to Natalie Nickerson, 20, a war worker of Phoenix, Arizona, a big, handsome Navy lieutenant promised her a Jap. Last week, Natalie received a human skull, autographed by her lieutenant and 13 friends and inscribed: ‘This is a good Jap-a dead one picked up on the New Guinea beach.’ Natalie, surprised at the gift, named it Tojo. The armed forces disapprove strongly of this sort of thing.”

 

[asianobserve]

We lost more people in the Bengal famine than the fake number your Hollywood media keeps peddling about the Jewish holocaust. Leave alone knowing about it, you can't even point Bengal on the map.

You're a product of a nation that treats pop culture narratives as a substitute for hard historical facts.

Again, review history and be objective. The Bengsl fsmine was not the result of a special order by Churchill to cause famine in Bengal region. It was a long time in the making (decades) caused by overpopulation, decreasing landholdings by most peasants due to predatory lending by Indian f8nanciers and landgrabbing, half-hearted or lack of proper attention from the British, and eventual nevessities of WW2 like rationing, prioritization of food supplies, military policy of denying food access to Japanese forces (scorched earth). The latter part were the immediate cause but the underlying cause is decades of mismanagement. In other words, tge deaths if the population were not intentional and the blame has to be shared by a lot of parties, the Brits, their Indian partners, the landgrabbers, overpopulation, etc.

The Holocaust on the other hand was a specific policy to murder of groups of people or nationalities deemed beneath the level of even pet animals. The victims', mostly Jewish (but other nationalities including Arian Germans), were first robbed of their personal and real properties, businesses, then shipped to labor camps to either be instantly killed or be used as slave labor and then to be eventually killed or die from exhaustion or starvation. This is certainly not the case in Bengal.

 

[asianobserve]

Muricans used to send skulls of Japanese soldiers to their dear ones as souvenirs.

Humane folks these Allies were!

================================================================
Photo published in the May 22, 1944 issue of LIFE magazine, with the following caption: “When he said goodby two years ago to Natalie Nickerson, 20, a war worker of Phoenix, Arizona, a big, handsome Navy lieutenant promised her a Jap. Last week, Natalie received a human skull, autographed by her lieutenant and 13 friends and inscribed: ‘This is a good Jap-a dead one picked up on the New Guinea beach.’ Natalie, surprised at the gift, named it Tojo. The armed forces disapprove strongly of this sort of thing.”

That's war, it brings the worst in humans. But just think of the atrocities vommitted by the Imoerial Jspanese forces. How many heads were chopped by their katanas or shot? My grandfather who was a provincial governor during the war was tortured by the Japanese. Luckily he was not killed. His blood-stained shirt is still in our fzmily possession.

But individual atrocities is different from institutional atrocities. Just ask yourself why the NAZIs preferred to surrender to Western allies than the Soviets at the end of the war?

 

[thethinker]

That's war, it brings the worst in humans. But just think of the atrocities vommitted by the Imoerial Jspanese forces. How many heads were chopped by their katanas or shot? My grandfather who was a provincial governor during the war was tortured by the Japanese. Luckily he was not killed. His blood-stained shirt is still in our fzmily possession.

But individual atrocities is different from institutional atrocities. Just ask yourself why the NAZIs preferred to surrender to Western allies than the Soviets at the end of the war?

There were institutional atrocities by both the sides. US and UK even kept German slaves after the war was over, there were war crimes which were hushed up by 'Allied friendly' media and the entire Allied war machinery. Many German PoWs were left to die either by neglect or torture.

So whitewashing Allies atrocities by blaming Soviets over Western forces is propaganda. None of the sides were well behaved but it's always the victors who write history.

 

[Haldiram]

According to your twisted history.

According to your twisted History : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment