Was World War II necessary?

Was World War II necessary or good?

  • It was good but not necessary.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    102

Oberrheiner

Pelican
I can't believe the narratives that Germany didn't want war. They wouldn't have invaded Russia if that was true.
Many white russians fled to germany after the revolution.
Well-respected members of the high society, who told what had happened (and what was still happening) in their home country.

The germans were not stupid you know .. plus they already had a good preview with the weimar republic anyway.
 

Goni

Woodpecker
Because I have common sense.
There were countless Nazis that survived the war and not one of them said a anything about "editing".
But I guess you have another ludicrous explanation for that to.
You don't have any common sense at all.

You are one of those guys with absolutely no inner depth knowledge of history and geopolitics trolling here with the history lessons you learn in History Channel.

You just bring down the level of the forum.

I am not saying or trying to convince the others here to be fans of the 3rd Reich or " Hitlerians" but one of the purposes of this forum is to bring deeper knowledge regarding these issues.

Stating that " Today's Mein Kampf is not edited and that Suvorov is a liar" when Germans themselves were surprised too see such a huge amount of soviet weaponry and soldiers gathered in the front, means that you are a troll or you don't want to bring the truth out, or you just have personal issues with Hitler.

Evan Pat Buchanan said clearly that while the Kaizer had world ambitions, Hitler was much much less " ambitious " and at max wanted to make Germany the dominant power in central and eastern Europe .
 

Troller

Pelican
Special interests create wars. They make money out of it. By selling bonds, arms, etc. Essentially bankers. And other people too. They are called merchants of death. Don´t pay attention to any other narratives. It´s all about money. There was also a rivalry between german and english bankers. Morgan and Kuhn, Loeb. Each financing their side.


 

Philonous

Pigeon
Well, even though I’m new here—and when you’re new you’re not supposed to get into “political” debates with anyone—I think this might now qualify more in the area of “history”. Furthermore, I’m not trying to goad anyone into debate. If I do debate anyone on this history, expect it to be gentlemanly on my part.

At any rate, what convinced me of the authenticity of Suvorov’s “Icebreaker” was Ron Unz’s 4,200 word review of it, which you can find here: https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-stalin-almost-conquered-europe/?highlight=Suvorov

And as fair as Unz’s review is, if you find it to be not fair enough then there are 797 comments underneath to argue one side or the other.

And Unz is obviously not a “white supremacist”—he’s an agnostic Jew and libertarian. I have never seen him personally endorse anything that might qualify as a race-based 3rd position movement. He simply tries to be unemotionally objective in weighing historical evidence as he can, and generally succeeds—is both altogether thorough and accurate with available resources.

Nonetheless, once Hitler was well into Russia, then you get the silly stuff. The taking of the strategically useless Stalingrad, followed by the defense of it at any cost—followed by the rejection of every levelheaded argument to pull back once pulling back was absolutely vital to any shred of hope of saving the Third Reich from that point.

He had turned imperialist while in Russia. That’s the irony. In our (((western propaganda))) we make him out to be a monster imperialist from the beginning, doing our best to censor all arguments to the contrary. Yet just a modicum of research from the other side and you start see very convincing evidence that the Gleiwitz Incident was most likely exactly what Hitler said, with England and France using Poland as a proxy to generate a very predictable (and measured) response from Germany—then to react hysterically to that response.

And so no, he hadn’t been a monster from the beginning—and if what he said in Mein Kampf is to be taken seriously, and what he said in his speeches taken seriously, then Hitler was effectively a practicing Christian. More ecumenical than Catholic (he was raised Catholic), but very much Christian in his relationship to God and his fellow man.

Yet once he got into Russia then you start seeing ego and a will to inhumanely subjugate others—including his own troops. You see the Christian taking back his self-will, saying, “Enough with this ‘thy will be done’ prayer—my own will’s all I need.”

And that’s when you finally see the ruin come upon him.

And so was WWII necessary?

I’d say it was “evil, but inevitable”. Or if not “evil”—if not going so far as to give it a moral component—then simply call it “horrific but inevitable”. Horrific, unhallowed, ghastly—well the opposite of heaven, yet with nearly all the players involved having some belief in the rightness of their own cause, and all these forces having been set in motion well ahead of time.

The western powers were totally under the duress of the Rothschild/Rockefeller banking cartel (still are), and Hitler made it impossible for that cartel to continue operating through Germany—so, yes, they were going to war against him. And Stalin most likely would, as well.

Stalin was both politically and militarily savvy, but as far as being governed by anything besides his own self-will and nationalism, no, he wasn’t. He was ruthless—he had no god or Christ—nothing to internally stop him from striking Germany when the Wehrmacht was occupied on the other edges of the continent, then thrusting his own better-resourced and better-manned army into Berlin. There’s little reason to suspect he wasn’t pursuing this avenue, only to have Hitler get wise and beat him to the punch.

Such is my own dispassionate take on the matter. And again, I don’t offer this to antagonize anyone here—rather, merely state what I myself gradually came to believe, and why I believe it.
 
Last edited:
Well, even though I’m new here—and when you’re new you’re not supposed to get into “political” debates with anyone—I think this might now qualify more in the area of “history”. Furthermore, I’m not trying to goad anyone into debate. If I do debate anyone on this history, expect it to be gentlemanly on my part.

At any rate, what convinced me of the authenticity of Suvorov’s “Icebreaker” was Ron Unz’s 4,200 word review of it, which you can find here: https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-stalin-almost-conquered-europe/?highlight=Suvorov

And as fair as Unz’s review is, if you find it to be not fair enough then there are 797 comments underneath to argue one side or the other.

And Unz is obviously not a “white supremacist”—he’s an agnostic Jew and libertarian. I have never seen him personally endorse anything that might qualify as a race-based 3rd position movement. He simply tries to be unemotionally objective in weighing historical evidence as he can, and generally succeeds—is both altogether thorough and accurate with available resources.

Nonetheless, once Hitler was well into Russia, then you get the silly stuff. The taking of the strategically useless Stalingrad, followed by the defense of it at any cost—followed by the rejection of every levelheaded argument to pull back once pulling back was absolutely vital to any shred of hope of saving the Third Reich from that point.

He had turned imperialist while in Russia. That’s the irony. In our (((western propaganda))) we make him out to be a monster imperialist from the beginning, doing our best to censor all arguments to the contrary. Yet just a modicum of research from the other side and you start see very convincing evidence that the Gleiwitz Incident was most likely exactly what Hitler said, with England and France using Poland as a proxy to generate a very predictable (and measured) response from Germany—then to react hysterically to that response.

And so no, he hadn’t been a monster from the beginning—and if what he said in Mein Kampf is to be taken seriously, and what he said in his speeches taken seriously, then Hitler was effectively a practicing Christian. More ecumenical than Catholic (he was raised Catholic), but very much Christian in his relationship to God and his fellow man.

Yet once he got into Russia then you start seeing ego and a will to inhumanely subjugate others—including his own troops. You see the Christian taking back his self-will, saying, “Enough with this ‘thy will be done’ prayer—my own will’s all I need.”

And that’s when you finally see the ruin come upon him.

And so was WWII necessary?

I’d say it was “evil, but inevitable”. Or if not “evil”—if not going so far as to give it a moral component—then simply call it “horrific but inevitable”. Horrific, unhallowed, ghastly—well the opposite of heaven, yet with nearly all the players involved having some belief in the rightness of their own cause, and all these forces having been set in motion well ahead of time.

The western powers were totally under the duress of the Rothschild/Rockefeller banking cartel (still are), and Hitler made it impossible for that cartel to continue operating through Germany—so, yes, they were going to war against him. And Stalin most likely would, as well.

Stalin was both politically and militarily savvy, but as far as being governed by anything besides his own self-will and nationalism, no, he wasn’t. He was ruthless—he had no god or Christ—nothing to internally stop him from striking Germany when the Wehrmacht was occupied on the other edges of the continent, then thrusting his own better-resourced and better-manned army into Berlin. There’s little reason to suspect he wasn’t pursuing this avenue, only to have Hitler get wise and beat him to the punch.

Such is my own dispassionate take on the matter. And again, I don’t offer this to antagonize anyone here—rather, merely state what I myself gradually came to believe, and why I believe it.

Unfortunately Hitler was not a practicing Christian at the time he was head of the The Third Reich. He was a Pantheist and Mein Kampf reveals this as well. Hitler like any good statesman capitalized on the faith of the people who were almost entirely Christian. Hence his pro Christian political moves and rhetoric. Which wound up working very well because he had the support of the Pope and most of Christian europe opposed to Jewish Capitalism and Jewish Communism dominating and creeping in slowly.

Hitler and many high ranking Nazi's were against Christianity behind closed doors. Some being into some really deep occult practices. The thesis that the Nazi's were obsessed with the occult is not true and yet not entirely false. But what I do know is that Himmler was blatantly and openly anti-christian. And wanted to destroy the Church when the war was over. A-lot of Nazi's viewed Christianity the same way as Nietzsche did.

Hitler is also quoted with saying things that very much against the church. See Goebbels Diaries. Hitler's Table Talks and several memoirs of people who were intimate with Hitler such as his personal valet, his chef, his photographer and lifelong friend etc. They all coincide with one another.

To prove this we need not look any further then the SS. The SS was the proto-type of the new German aristocracy and hierarchy and they had a magazine type of deal going on exclusively for SS members a sort of education program you can call it and It was deeply rooted in Pantheistic ideology in other words anti-christian ideology and the sort of Pagan Virtue of the ancients, such as the Greeks and Romans. Also the new education curriculum issued by Hitler to the Hitler Youth was rooted in the same, a move away from Christianity who the high ranking Nazi's viewed as destroying everything noble in humanity.

The Nazi vision at the end of the day was anti-christian. But infinitely better than the hell hole we are stuck in at the moment. The Jewification of society. The Nazi's were never intent on persecuting Christians as most of the people they ruled over were Christian, but sought to bring a natural death to the church via issuing new education programs and so on and so forth. And just directing the culture away from Christian and Semitic teachings. Hoping that people would just gradually drift away like they did with the old gods of the greeks and romans and bring the New man and The New faith in to the German people.

This is the very brief and concise version of it all. As World War 2 and The Nazi Party is such a deep topic plagued with misinfo misdirection and serious biases, it requires tremendous time, effort and discipline to understand the truth of it all. And is highly dependent on what lens you perform the investigation through.
 

Philonous

Pigeon
Unfortunately Hitler was not a practicing Christian at the time he was head of the The Third Reich. He was a Pantheist and Mein Kampf reveals this as well. Hitler like any good statesman capitalized on the faith of the people who were almost entirely Christian. Hence his pro Christian political moves and rhetoric. Which wound up working very well because he had the support of the Pope and most of Christian europe opposed to Jewish Capitalism and Jewish Communism dominating and creeping in slowly.

Hitler and many high ranking Nazi's were against Christianity behind closed doors. Some being into some really deep occult practices. The thesis that the Nazi's were obsessed with the occult is not true and yet not entirely false. But what I do know is that Himmler was blatantly and openly anti-christian. And wanted to destroy the Church when the war was over. A-lot of Nazi's viewed Christianity the same way as Nietzsche did.

Hitler is also quoted with saying things that very much against the church. See Goebbels Diaries. Hitler's Table Talks and several memoirs of people who were intimate with Hitler such as his personal valet, his chef, his photographer and lifelong friend etc. They all coincide with one another.

To prove this we need not look any further then the SS. The SS was the proto-type of the new German aristocracy and hierarchy and they had a magazine type of deal going on exclusively for SS members a sort of education program you can call it and It was deeply rooted in Pantheistic ideology in other words anti-christian ideology and the sort of Pagan Virtue of the ancients, such as the Greeks and Romans. Also the new education curriculum issued by Hitler to the Hitler Youth was rooted in the same, a move away from Christianity who the high ranking Nazi's viewed as destroying everything noble in humanity.

The Nazi vision at the end of the day was anti-christian. But infinitely better than the hell hole we are stuck in at the moment. The Jewification of society. The Nazi's were never intent on persecuting Christians as most of the people they ruled over were Christian, but sought to bring a natural death to the church via issuing new education programs and so on and so forth. And just directing the culture away from Christian and Semitic teachings. Hoping that people would just gradually drift away like they did with the old gods of the greeks and romans and bring the New man and The New faith in to the German people.

This is the very brief and concise version of it all. As World War 2 and The Nazi Party is such a deep topic plagued with misinfo misdirection and serious biases, it requires tremendous time, effort and discipline to understand the truth of it all. And is highly dependent on what lens you perform the investigation through.
Well, you’ve fleshed-out something that I tend to play-down when I first present my argument. And what I mean is I actually perceive Hitler’s departure from actually being Christian taking place a lot sooner than late 1942—albeit not as soon as you apparently do.

I’d say he was a faithful Christian right up until he was appointed Chancellor, and maybe a year or so after that. Then, as you said, a Christian in name only—projecting an image of “Christian-ness” to content the German public.

And I am aware of both Himmler’s paganism and the SS pagan rituals you speak with—one could probably still find video of such pagan SS ceremonies somewhere on YouTube. The ceremonies look exactly like what they were.

However, if I present my case by saying, “Godless imperialism was creeping into Hitler by 1934”, then the reader is inclined to believe I take the side of the (((western propaganda))), and I perceive all his actions from that point forward to be imperialistic in nature and motive. Only I don’t. Rather, I perceive them exactly as I described them—predictable and measured responses to England and France using the Polish communists as a proxy terrorist army, and that terrorist army being a very real threat to German stability.

So, in other words, even though his inner departure from Christ came in the early 1930’s, it wasn’t until the early 1940s when this new disposition actually reflected itself in his military deeds as commander and chief. Of course, it would have been reflected earlier in his domestic programs and acceptance of pagan rituals in his SS, as you pointed out.

However, the idea he was pantheistic even before then—back when he wrote Mein Kampf—no, I don’t see this. Rather, in Mein Kampf I see a Christian arguing for a viewpoint of “cultural evolution” to counter Darwin’s biological evolution—yet nonetheless borrowing examples from the later to elucidate the points he makes in the former.

Do I think he faked all that Christianity while he was dictating the book to Ernst Rohm in his prison cell?

No.

Simple as that—I don’t believe he sat in jail with his future in question and then lied about his faith for political gains that may or may not ever eventuate. That doesn’t make any sense to me. If you’re going to lie about a religious position you lie about what’s likely to profit you in the immediate, not may or may not profit you 10 years down the road (if ever).

But again, once he got into that chancellorship, quickly grew to win some political sway over the parliament (as well as the ability to enact his will through national emergency edicts), that’s when I think he lost interest in the before-bed prayer routine—along with all humble willingness to take Christian direction.

And after that he very much would have been an “agnostic-deist-pantheist” intellectual—a guy who tells his friends he accepts the existence of “a god”, much as one accepts the existence of some foreign galaxy one knows nothing about.

But no, I don’t see that as his beliefs back in the 1920’s.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
But no, I don’t see that as his beliefs back in the 1920’s.

Maybe he could be called "Christian", but there is evidence that Hitler was strongly anti-Catholic since his childhood.
Kubizek, his childhood friend, is a witness to this (and he is quoted by Joachim Fest).
Already when he was eleven, in his school at Linz he was in a group of kids that rejected the Catholic-Austrian world they were living in and identified with the Protestant Reich, they dressed themselves in the colors of the German flag and sang the Deutschlandslied. There's a passage in which Hitler himself remembers how he ridiculed his religion teacher at school, saying for example "I have heard of a certain scientist that questions the existence of heaven or hell".
In his room at Vienna, Hitler had a poster above his bed with Georg von Schoenerer's maxims written on it. He also successfully took steps to serve his military duty not in the Austrian army, but in the bavarian section of the German army, which officially involved a "pan-germanist" (and anti-Catholic) catechism.
 
World war II was necessary for the elite that now is behind the coronavirus hoax to further their agenda. Very essential I would say, for they needed to destroy Europe in order to destroy nationalism, hence make gigantic leaps towards the one world government (UN etc.) that we see accelerating so fast now. Make no mistake, the same elite/cult/families who are behind all the cultural developments and degeneration since the 60s and now the coronavirus response were absolutely behind the 2 world wars. The key lesson here is nothing happens as a coincidence, it is all planned for. Highly recommend checking out Jay Dyer's work on this, especially his Tragedy and Hope lecture series that will deal with what really happened in the 20th century and who were behind it. Spoiler: it will shock your world view, even if you're pretty red pilled / god pilled now you will realize that even history (or should I say, of course history) as presented is a complete and utter misleading.

 

JohnQThomas

Woodpecker
A few considerations:

1. World War II began when Germany invaded Poland in 1939, sparking Britain's entry into the war. However, this could have just been Hitler's attempt to unite western Poland's German speakers into a single German-speaking entity. This is not a bad thing per se.

2. Hitler had previously annexed sovereign nations like Austria and Czechoslovakia, and nobody cared.

3. The Holocaust began in 1942, well into the war. Before that, Jews were persecuted, but not to an extent that justified war -- a conclusion that the 1938 Evian conference upheld. The Nazis even offered the Jews money to settle in Palestine, but the Zionists refused this.

EDIT. Yes, the Nazis killed Jews prior to 1942, but not in a systematic or targeted way, and only in a manner that is unfortunately associated with war. They also killed Poles, Russians, gypsies, etc., but nobody bothered.
Invading Poland was a bad thing in the eyes of Poles. Invading Poland is always a bad thing—no matter which country does it or tries to do it.

And the fact that the Nazis killed Poles, Russians, gypsies, etc. (as well as Jews) is not particularly a point in their favor.
 

Sword and Board

Woodpecker
On the Poles killing Germans. These were (((communist))) Poles. They were also marching the Polish intelligentsia and dissidents out into forests for execution.

This was a theme all across Eastern Europe especially Russia. Christian places of worship destroyed, “Anti-semitism” outlawed and millions of Christians slaughtered.

It’s funny looking at that fat fuck degenerate sellout pig Churchill now.

The Shabbos goys legacy is even pissed on today by the Jews he sold his soul too. They mock and ridicule as their useful idiots pull down his statues. All the supplicant goy are just temporary whores for their cause.
 
On the Poles killing Germans. These were (((communist))) Poles. They were also marching the Polish intelligentsia and dissidents out into forests for execution.

This was a theme all across Eastern Europe especially Russia. Christian places of worship destroyed, “Anti-semitism” outlawed and millions of Christians slaughtered.

It’s funny looking at that fat fuck degenerate sellout pig Churchill now.

The Shabbos goys legacy is even pissed on today by the Jews he sold his soul too. They mock and ridicule as their useful idiots pull down his statues. All the supplicant goy are just temporary whores for their cause.
But for a while they tell us how IMPORTANT their ally was. Then they set fire to his monument.

I was basically brought up with the vision of the Nazis as communicated by Indiana Jones movies: evil, they want to take over the world everywhere, kill everyone because they're racist.

This is a very normie Timeline documentary series video but it gets something across.


The impression you get is of two burgeoning superpowers sitting uncomfortably side-by-side and aware of the fact that sooner or later they will have to take each other down.
Nazi Germany and the (((Soviet Union))) were never going to co-exist, not after Hitler freed Germany from Central Bank oppression but even before that they existentially hated each other as Hitler knew exactly what the origins-story of the Soviet Union really was, and the Soviets knew that he knew.

You get the impression that Britain and France were an easy victory on the Western front and kind of irrelevant, Hitler had no real interest in fighting Britain, kept offering peace
- and that the real headache leading to WWII was always how the Soviets and Nazis could coexist when they both were expanding in all manner of ways, if not in foreign territory then on their own territory in military strength and power and control, potency.

Hitler let Britain off the hook at Dunkirk and even this documentary admits that he didn't want war but peaceful co-existence with the British Empire, even after two years of war.

The whole Moltov-Ribbentrop pact was just a way of both sides buying time before they eventually clashed.

Of course there was the other aspect that the (((banks))) in London and Washington wanted Hitler done for and both Britain and France's war provocations and Stalin and the Soviet Union were a key plank in those plans. As were the agitating events in Poland referenced by Solzhenitsyn in "200 years together."

So.. it was inevitable while Germany kept throwing off its gaolers and shrugging off (((financial))) control between 1914 and 1939 that a new war would come about and inevitable it seems to me as the Soviets and the Germans couldn't co-exist in Central and Eastern Europe.

As far as Im concerned the Soviets would have expanded westward sooner or later, Hitler or no Hitler, Nazis or no Nazis.
But how far Westward they would have wanted to go remains a question.

EDIT: These guys get across something of what Im trying to say and something of the atmosphere in Europe at that time.

 
Last edited:
The general narrative is that the war became a meat grinder, once Hitler decided to maniacally conquer the world. Some of the more academic and intellectually-minded may even point to statements in Mein Kampf that prove Germany's wish to conquer eastwards. While there is truth to it, that wasn't the goal of a "world-conqueror", rather of a man who had recognized Jewish influence worldwide and realized the only way forward for a morally just Germany (and other allied nationalist states) would be to secure enough domestic resources to be able to negotiate on the world stage, from a position of independence and inherent power. No one who understands geopolitics would dispute that fact as being essential for having a "voice" in the world, even today.

Germany's multiple offers of peace to the west were proof that the nation was not after worldwide conquest and simply wished to become independent from Jewish finance and politics, in the truest sense. While the war against Bolshevik USSR was inevitable, Germany would've delayed it as much as possible to ensure its chances of success increased. What happened on June 22, 1941 was out of necessity to preempt a suspected invasion by the Soviet Union.

That topic has been brought up several times on these forums, but I'd like to follow that up with a visual aid (open it on Imgur for the high quality scan):


The referenced map is a military situational map - it was marked up daily for the General Staff of the Wehrmacht, as well as Hitler (hence the "Chef-Sache" stamp in the upper-left corner). It served no propaganda purpose (it was classified top-secret, or "Geheime Kommandosache") and depicted the true situation as it was known to the German military. The map shows the status of the eastern front on day 2 of Operation Barbarossa (June 23, 1941). Notice the large number of divisions on the Soviet side, all in forward offensive positions, structurally resembling more or less that of the invading Wehrmacht. You can also spot the sheer size and organizational structure of the deployed Soviet forces.

Were they not in offensive positions and preparing to launch an invasion on Germany, the Wehrmacht may have not had the quick successes that it did in the initial stage of the invasion. In short, the Soviet invasion force was caught off guard, trying to - unsuccessfully - reorganize to fight a unexpected defensive war.

World War II was unnecessary and lead to deaths of millions of European Christians on both sides. The prime perpetrator, or cause of this massacre was not Germany, since as per their general doctrine, they intended to preserve the culture and peoples of Europe. The many deaths caused by that war primarily benefited "Eine kleine, wurzellose, internationale Clique" (a small, rootless, international clique) - otherwise known as Jews.

The four or five additional decades that western Europe continued to "enjoy" as more or less Christian and morally guided societies, are owed to that preemptive strike by Hitler.
 
You need to upgrade a bit your knowledge in history.

Japan had its good share of crimes, and no ones questions that but WW2 didn't start to stop the brutality or Japanese colonisation .

Japan started its actions since 1930s in Manchuria and no war started. The war started 6 years later in Europe against Germany.

And evan after that Japan entered war 2 and 3 months later.

Also the war against Germany didn't start because Hitler got drunk in his pan German dreams.

This is typical pan ignorant narrative most people have due to brainwashing for 75 years.

3rd Reich was the 1st state to denounce international jewry and create a debt free currency and system. That is the main reason.

And to push Germany into war, Jews triggered polish fools to kill and mistreat Germans in Poland for several months despite Hitler warnings.

Than churchill as a good goyim refused 20+ peace offers of Hitler and Stalin was preparing a mass invasion in 1941 which triggered the Barbarrossa operation as a response.

There is a good channel that shows why Germany lost WWII:

A lot of it is failure of Logistics and Strategy. Even though they excelled at tactics.
 
Last edited:
There is a good channel that shows why Germany lost WWII:

A lot of it is failure of logistics and Strategy. Even though they excelled at tactics.

Sort of. The gentleman that prepares the videos does have a passion for discovering correct history, but sometimes lets his "modern" liberal/capitalist education misguide him. For example, on one of his videos regarding the logistical failures of Germany, he went on a rant of sorts to persuade the viewer that if only Hitler's Germany had been a capitalist, "free market" society, their production and logistics would've been handled better. The issue there is that when you have very little to no natural resources of your own, and are essentially blockaded worldwide, a centralized war economy is the only path forward. At that point, it doesn't matter what the market price of Chromium is, when you have no Chromium whatsoever.
 
Sort of. The gentleman that prepares the videos does have a passion for discovering correct history, but sometimes lets his "modern" liberal/capitalist education misguide him. For example, on one of his videos regarding the logistical failures of Germany, he went on a rant of sorts to persuade the viewer that if only Hitler's Germany had been a capitalist, "free market" society, their production and logistics would've been handled better. The issue there is that when you have very little to no natural resources of your own, and are essentially blockaded worldwide, a centralized war economy is the only path forward. At that point, it doesn't matter what the market price of Chromium is, when you have no Chromium whatsoever.

Centralized War economy is what the Soviet Union also had even after the War. And that was still a disaster even with rich natural resources.
 
Centralized War economy is what the Soviet Union also had even after the War. And that was still a disaster even with rich natural resources.

Permit me to clarify: My statement wasn't an argument of "Capitalism vs Nationalist War Economy vs Communist War Economy". It was to point out that when you have zero Chromium to use in building your heavy tanks when fighting a two (and later, three) front war, futures contracts and market pricing for Chromium deliveries, are not going to make the war effort more efficient.
 
Top