• thisisbutaname@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Well, not to defend the nazis or anything, but they did manage to make considerable amounts of damage and it took multiple great powers working together to beat them back.

    • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      3 hours ago

      That’s how Fascists work though. They pick fights with bigger and bigger opponents – because they’re invulnerable, you see – until they lose. Their economy was absolutely insane, and required flat out pillaging their neighbours. Eventually your neighbours are too big to pillage.

      • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Isn’t that not just an imperialistic trait, not necessarily a fascistic one? Franco’s Spain didn’t collapse, while it was still very much fascistic.

        All the while, this trait is very much applicable to the Roman, Ottoman, Soviet or US empires.

    • tibi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Also, they successfully occupied most of the countries in western and central Europe. It’s only when they tried to expand into Russia that the war started. If they didn’t pick a fight with the russians, the Third Reich would have lasted much longer.

    • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 hours ago

      They won many wars in a row without losing. Then they just overdid it a lil bit at the end and got bonked. They couldve had a huge empire if they just stopped a bit earlier.

    • ILikeBoobies
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      I won’t say Finland or Thailand were great powers but Japan had a decent showing so it’s not like they were alone

      Though it really only took USSR to beat Germany

      • hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        I think a major part of getting “beat” is they fought the USSR in the east and simultaneously the USA and UK in the west. I mean the war against Stalin wasn’t going super smoothy. But it went on since 1941 already. And it really went south for the nazis when the USA joined WW2.

  • slaacaa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    Same with the confederacy:

    • lasted just 4 years
    • lost a war against the USA

    Yet their flags are waived around with pride 250+ years later. How perfectly normal

  • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    5 hours ago

    wasn’t even the last one standing on the losing side either. Japanese people are better than the master race?

    • UwUhugger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 hours ago

      U mean a druggy?

      Everyone used to consume inorbitant amounts of hard drugs! Thats the charm of the time!

      Or like are you to implying the narrative of nazi generals? That the war would have been won tups if Hitler didn’t meddle? ‘Cause thats also not true! The war rememtos are complete lies meant to convince nato to hire them as advisers, which they would have anyways. If things were to shit the fan with the ussr then they wanted the german militia…