German Homefront

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Talvisota wrote:

      Originally the book was written as an attack on Britain's appeasement at the time
      That's just sheer bullshit. I don't think the word "Britain" appears in Mein Kampf even once. Hitler wasn't interested in Britain at all, except as a kind of "sharing partner" to divide the world with.

      I don't know if you've actually read Mein Kampf, but it is mostly a rambling book... everything is bad, and all needs to be "corrected". There's many wrongs identified, but the ideas on how to do something about it are pretty vague. All of THAT developed after they actually came to power, and again, there was much discussion on HOW to achieve the goals in Nazi circles. Goebbels and Himmler disagreed vehemently, for example. They all agreed that Germans/Aryans were superior beings, but they fought hard battles on HOW that supremacy should be exerted. The Holocaust wasn't even planned before 1941; but after Wannsee, it suddenly happened in two years. Surprise surprise, Hitler wasn't present at the Wannsee conference; it was just a bunch of people having a "technical" meeting on how to best execute his general guidelines. If they would have proposed to ship the Jews to Madagascar, Hitler would have likely been fine with it. It were the juniors (relatively speaking) who decided to kill them all instead.

      Nazism was an ideology about goals, and not so much about actual implementation. If Germans could live their dream of superiority, they didn't really care how EXACTLY that dream could be made real; that was considered an "administrative" issue.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • Incorrect, Hitler wrote and spoke about the UK quite a bit… since they were white, he actually thought somewhat positively of them, and kinda thought they could be allies, but only as junior partners and administrators under German influence (basically puppets). And only if they could shake their Jewish influence (his words, not mine).

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Hitler wasn't interested in Britain at all, except as a kind of "sharing partner" to divide the world with.
      As I was saying.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • Not entirely, he just wanted them away. He wasn’t gonna split the world or treat them equally. He simply wanted him to not affect his plans for Eastern Europe, if that meant making peace with them, then all the better.

      You are correct that the Nazis were very volatile. The Final Solution was only planned for about 90 minutes… their plans shifted and changed, and even Hitler got into screaming arguments with other Nazis.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Firstly, Hitler admired Great Britain and never wanted a war with us, in fact, he would like to form a kind of alliance with UK. Remember, UK and France declared war first, the war-mongers in the parliament were hungry for war and wanted destruction of German nation. Neville was a man of peace and would have maintained peace in europe, only if it wasn't for Churchill and his bloodhungry gang. Germany only wanted Danzing in Poland. In fact, Churchill and his gang raged war for saving polish 'independence' and then gave all of Poland to USSR. It was an aimless war.

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      Incorrect, Hitler wrote and spoke about the UK quite a bit… since they were white, he actually thought somewhat positively of them, and kinda thought they could be allies, but only as junior partners and administrators under German influence (basically puppets). And only if they could shake their Jewish influence (his words, not mine).
      What do you mean by "since they were white", even poles are white, makes no sense. Hitler never aimed to puppet UK.

      As mentioned above, nazi goals weren't really something they would achieve. Similarly, the complete eradication of Jewish people and slavs wouldn't have happened. True, some nazis wanted that to happen but yet, it won't happen. If Germany had won the war, they could care less for doing all that stuff. In fact, Fascism would've appeared less brutal if they had won (just like communism in the real timeline.)
      TMC

    • The Mister Class wrote:

      wanted destruction of German nation
      Jesus fucking Christ, please tell me this is some kind of joke.

      Britain, for six whole years literally gave Germany exactly what they wanted in the hope that they wouldn't be at war. Then, with the knowledge of Kristallnacht etc, broken treaties, and the invasion of Poland where Britain had a legal obligation to join due to a treaty, then and ONLY THEN did they declare war. It's why Chamberlain got o ill after he left office, he had promised the British peace and he couldn't deliver it.


      The Mister Class wrote:

      True, some nazis wanted that to happen
      SOME? SOME?????????????????????????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



      "Only some Nazis wanted the eradication of Jews and Slavs" do you realise how fucking dumb of a sentence that is mate
      "Imma play CoW to calm down" - Literally nobody ever

      Talvisota of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • That’s absolute bullshit… are you trolling? That’s literal Neo-Nazi rhetoric, what the fuck bro. No, Churchill was not in charge at this point. Germany has already broken MULTIPLE agreements, such as Czechoslovakia (not German, but they took it over and began massacring people there.) If they only wanted Danzig (which was majority Polish) then they would have stopped after taking it… they didn’t. They signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact to split Eastern Europe quite a bit before that as well. They were right to declare war, and should have earlier. Don’t you DARE justify something like that, especially on top of the bodies of literal millions.

      Them achieving Total Eradication or not doesn’t truly matter. But no, they did wish to exterminate these races. There’s a reason they actually did it in our timeline… Overall though, Hitler and the Nazis had one goal they could and did agree on - eradicating the “Judeo-Bolsheviks” And saving the Nordic race. It’s literally documented that they committed slave labor and mass genocide… after the death of Stalin even the Gulags were ended. Those things aren’t the same at all. In fact, their hopes were to commence plans AFTER they won the war. Looking at what they had done to Poland and Czechoslovakia after they took them, it’s pretty telling what their plans were. There is absolutely no proof they would just chill and end the lucrative slave system and mass/murder and pillaging they had been doing for years. In fact the economy of the Reich had became rather reliant on those two things, and they hoped to plunder more wealth from conquered nations after the war…

      The economy of Nazi Germany is actually a very interesting topic… it was organized around the idea of military rearmament and strengthening, and slave labor was its backbone. By 1944 a quarter of German workers were foreign slaves, be it Jews, Slaves, Frenchmen, or others. Without it their economy would undoubtedly collapse, so taking over new lands was a priority. German spending was at a such a high deficit in fact that they likely would gone bankrupt had they not started the war and plundered/enslaved much of Europe. They would sap as much wealth and resources from these regions as possible, heavily taxing their puppet governments, all to keep their war economy going. Employment in war related sectors was imperative.

      Basically, even if they had won the war, they would likely collapse after it was all done and they had no new wealth to plunder. All those soldiers and workers employed in war related jobs now have nowhere to go, and unlike the Allies, who had industries and economies and could rebuild with US help (and plundering former Axis regions in the case of the USSR) Germany, which was very deep in debt, and had the vast majority of its economy oriented towards war and was not ready for a peacetime state. Their whole ideology basically necessitated focusing on building up your military and invading people, especially since they ran a huge budget deficit and could not keep up the same level of rearmament without gaining resources from other places. Somewhat similar to Imperial Japan, now that I think about it…

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Don't you think it is funny that the 'good guys' always win the war? You might not know, but during the 'blitz', half of British civilian deaths came from the friendly fire. Why? This was done by Churchill when German bombers attacked London, he would order coastal batteries to randomly fire in the sky (These shells would fall back and kill civilians), all of this for propaganda, he only had one aim and that was to escalate the war.

      German bombers only hit London because they had lost the path, it was a mistake, what did Churchill do? He deliberately targeted German civilian centers, bombed cities for no reason. All this prompted Luftwaffe and Hitler to initiate attack on British civilian centers. The morality of Churchill and his war hungry mates was clearly showcased to the whole world during the firebombing of Dresden.
      TMC

    • If you read his statements carefully then you could hear him crying. Cope harder bro, your superior race lost to the world 80yrs ago, take your L and move on.
      "We can be wrong, or we can know it, but we can't do both at the same time." ~ Heisenberg

      SENIOR ELECTION MANAGER
      HEAD OF THE FPD

    • Joe Bartolozzi wrote:

      If you read his statements carefully then you could hear him crying. Cope harder bro, your superior race lost to the world 80yrs ago, take your L and move on.
      Superior race? What are you even talking about? I never made any racist remarks. The whole point of this conversation was to despise USSR and not celebrate Nazis, did you even bother reading what I wrote? Truth hurts so much??
      TMC

    • The Mister Class wrote:

      Joe Bartolozzi wrote:

      If you read his statements carefully then you could hear him crying. Cope harder bro, your superior race lost to the world 80yrs ago, take your L and move on.
      Superior race? What are you even talking about? I never made any racist remarks. The whole point of this conversation was to despise USSR and not celebrate Nazis, did you even bother reading what I wrote? Truth hurts so much??
      I mean you said that Britain declared war on Germany because they wanted to "destroy the German nation". Forgive me, but that's exactly what German propaganda was saying at the time and has been saying for 80 years.
      "Imma play CoW to calm down" - Literally nobody ever

      Talvisota of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • It wasn't that the politicians wanted to destroy Germany, more that they had decided that their drug-addicted, mentally ill, racist leader has violated so many treaties that it was no longer sustainable for the empire to remain at peace with it (and even helping it during appeasement). Next time, don't take your historical "facts" from r/fascism.
      "Imma play CoW to calm down" - Literally nobody ever

      Talvisota of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • For centuries, it has been British policy that no single state on the continent would dominate Europe, while expanding their colonial empire. At first that danger Austria, then France, and it was the main reason for resisting Napoleon for almost two decades. When Germany united in 1870, it clearly became the most powerful nation on the continent, and the treaty system before WW1 clearly reflected that. This was also why Britain was much more lenient than France on allowing Germany to slack on payment of war reparations: they were down and didn't need to be COMPLETELY pressed down into the mud, or some other power might become dominant again. When Hitler started his aggressive policies again, this mechanism simply reactivated again: Germany became too powerful (and his methods of governing also disgusted the decent British), so he became the natural enemy once more.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      For centuries, it has been British policy that no single state on the continent would dominate Europe, while expanding their colonial empire. At first that danger Austria, then France, and it was the main reason for resisting Napoleon for almost two decades. When Germany united in 1870, it clearly became the most powerful nation on the continent, and the treaty system before WW1 clearly reflected that. This was also why Britain was much more lenient than France on allowing Germany to slack on payment of war reparations: they were down and didn't need to be COMPLETELY pressed down into the mud, or some other power might become dominant again. When Hitler started his aggressive policies again, this mechanism simply reactivated again: Germany became too powerful (and his methods of governing also disgusted the decent British), so he became the natural enemy once more.
      I feel as though if this was true, Britain would have pursued a more expansionist policy in Europe than they did. And I really disagree, seeing as Britain allowed Germany to expand with the annexation of the Sudetenland, but then there was also Poland literally begging us to enter the war on their side if they were attacked by Germany. Had it been Britain's policy to actively prevent German expansion, I think they would have formed a sort of proto-NATO type thing in Europe, but of course that didn't happen.
      "Imma play CoW to calm down" - Literally nobody ever

      Talvisota of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Talvisota wrote:

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      For centuries, it has been British policy that no single state on the continent would dominate Europe, while expanding their colonial empire. At first that danger Austria, then France, and it was the main reason for resisting Napoleon for almost two decades. When Germany united in 1870, it clearly became the most powerful nation on the continent, and the treaty system before WW1 clearly reflected that. This was also why Britain was much more lenient than France on allowing Germany to slack on payment of war reparations: they were down and didn't need to be COMPLETELY pressed down into the mud, or some other power might become dominant again. When Hitler started his aggressive policies again, this mechanism simply reactivated again: Germany became too powerful (and his methods of governing also disgusted the decent British), so he became the natural enemy once more.
      I feel as though if this was true, Britain would have pursued a more expansionist policy in Europe than they did. And I really disagree, seeing as Britain allowed Germany to expand with the annexation of the Sudetenland, but then there was also Poland literally begging us to enter the war on their side if they were attacked by Germany. Had it been Britain's policy to actively prevent German expansion, I think they would have formed a sort of proto-NATO type thing in Europe, but of course that didn't happen.
      No, he is completely right. The British policy in Europe for centuries was to prevent anyone from getting too powerful on the continent, trying to preserve a balance of power and peace there while they go out and colonize to their hearts content. They didn’t like the idea of big wars. As Roko mentioned, at first they didn’t like the Habsburg empires of Spain and Austria, and once those declined the French, already quite the rivals of theirs, and with a massive population and powerful land army became their next adversary. After the Napoleonic wars, their main adversary was Russia. The great game and Crimean war took place for that reason, as there was a great fear that an industrialized Russia, with its massive population and resources would be a superpower. Still, after Germany united and humiliated France, they started fearing their attempts at continental domination. Germany building a massive navy that could rival theirs was an even bigger point of contention. This balance of power idea was part of the reason they choose not to annihilate all of Germany like France wanted to. And of course good old Shitler came around, broke treaties, began squalid policies, and as Roko said, became their natural enemy once more.


      The Mister Class wrote:

      Don't you think it is funny that the 'good guys' always win the war? You might not know, but during the 'blitz', half of British civilian deaths came from the friendly fire. Why? This was done by Churchill when German bombers attacked London, he would order coastal batteries to randomly fire in the sky (These shells would fall back and kill civilians), all of this for propaganda, he only had one aim and that was to escalate the war.

      German bombers only hit London because they had lost the path, it was a mistake, what did Churchill do? He deliberately targeted German civilian centers, bombed cities for no reason. All this prompted Luftwaffe and Hitler to initiate attack on British civilian centers. The morality of Churchill and his war hungry mates was clearly showcased to the whole world during the firebombing of Dresden.
      I want a source to prove that British AA guns and fighters magically killed tens of thousands of civilians. Accident? Ah yes, because the British totally would have known that! It’s war, civilians died in that attack. What do you expect the UK to do? Forgive them??? I hate Churchill more than you ever could, but more because he was a racist dickhead and not because he fought fascism. As for Dresden, I honestly could care less. That’s always used as whataboutism, when Germany has bombed multiple other cities (Warsaw being the worst) into oblivion. The damage caused there and Allies intentions are also overblown. It was a key industrial center and DID house military facilities iirc.

      The Mister Class wrote:

      Once again, I am not justifying nazi crimes nor am I denying holocaust. I am just telling the truth, history is written by victors, remember.
      No, history is written by historians. If it was written by the victors, we’d celebrate the Mongol victories over half the planet. We’d speak proudly about the Barbarians that sacked Rome and helped bring its collapse. We’d be celebrating the great Muslim Jihads that kicked the barbaric crusaders out of Jerusalem. But we do not. Why? Depends, actually. But in the case of the Nazis… they suck ass and should have been crushed before they even took power. Henry Tandy should have shot Hitler.

      Here is a nice video on the topic I saw a while ago (I stole a quote here from it):


      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Talvisota wrote:

      It wasn't that the politicians wanted to destroy Germany, more that they had decided that their drug-addicted, mentally ill, racist leader has violated so many treaties that it was no longer sustainable for the empire to remain at peace with it (and even helping it during appeasement). Next time, don't take your historical "facts" from r/fascism.
      Well, facts are facts, you can't call them fake just because you don't agree with them. Yes, Churchill was paid to wage war and destroy Germany.
      What about Dresden?
      TMC

    • The Mister Class wrote:

      Talvisota wrote:

      It wasn't that the politicians wanted to destroy Germany, more that they had decided that their drug-addicted, mentally ill, racist leader has violated so many treaties that it was no longer sustainable for the empire to remain at peace with it (and even helping it during appeasement). Next time, don't take your historical "facts" from r/fascism.
      Well, facts are facts, you can't call them fake just because you don't agree with them. Yes, Churchill was paid to wage war and destroy Germany.What about Dresden?
      Yes, what about Dresden? What about the bombing of a city that happened five years deep into a war where the opposition had killed literally ELEVEN MILLION innocent people for their identity. I know churchill was bad, but this is levels of wehraboo I haven't seen in a long time, honestly. And "facts are facts" isn't a legitimate argument when you literally haven't provided any evidence as to why they are facts, other than goddamn propaganda posters.
      "Imma play CoW to calm down" - Literally nobody ever

      Talvisota of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • He wasn’t, he was just very prideful and didn’t want to lose a war. There was no grand Jewish conspiracy that paid him to keep fighting..


      Fun fact: the idea that Dresden was this demonic act of pure evil seems to have stemmed from Soviet and East German propaganda… interesting…

      Dresden was a massive industrial center, and a key location were men and material were gathered. It was a military transport and communications hub. There were factories and thousands of soldiers there. A huge portion of civilian deaths were due to bad preparation for an attack, with unorganized AA defenses and Air Raid shelters of questionable quality.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate