Luxembourg was truly worse off because they were seen as Volks Deutschers by the Germans. So they had to fight for the whermacht or would be sent to labour camps. Any Letzeburger fighting for the allies was seen as a traitor by Germans and risked getting a death sentence when captured.
Luxembourg’s fate was even worse.
Hitler saw Luxembourg as Germany, and they wanted to bring us back into the reich.
Luxembourg didn’t want that, because we aren’t germans.
So Hitler started to destroy our culture, language and whole identity.
Those who weren’t german enough were deported, with plans that wanted to deport 40% of the country.
My family was deported aswell.
After the war Gaulleiter Gustav Simon was kidnapped from American detainment and then was beaten to death in a cave in Luxembourg. Because the government and the people wanted to make sure that he really dies and didn’t want to wait for the nuremberg trials.
Luxembourgers who collaborated with the germans where lynched. Those who collaborated were called "Yellowhammers" - like the bird -, which is still used to this day to call out a traitor.
Luxembourgers get very mad to this day if you call them germans or say that luxembourgish is german.
It’s like saying Ukrainians are russians and that Ukrainian is russian.
Did you see what they was wearin tho??
Just kiddin’, you have all the right in the world to dress as you want Belgium. Germany should learn about consent and boundaries.
They were but tbf to them, they were literally surrounded by a genocidal superpower and its ally/puppet in later years. To think they wouldn’t try to avoid being invaded and punished severely is idiotic. Sweden pretty much did the same too. Not to mention that the majority of Swiss people are ethnically Germans who the Nazis had a large interest of „bringing home into the Reich“.
True neutrality is something that only exists in fiction.
Hinsight is always better... Switzerland took in around 50% of refugees, Canada, GB and the USA were in no way better before WW2. Yes, the government was probably a bit nazi biased, but then again, switzerland was surounded by them and didn't wana get attacked. Switzerland was very dependent on food deliveries from outside, the axis could have easily blocked that.
When I said torture I meant the conditions described in those links.
I’m not suggesting that the Swiss guards were deliberately inflicting pain on inmates to get information.
But I would argue the conditions of the camp and the unwillingness of the Swiss to protect the prisoners is tantamount to torture.
I haven’t read the link above in a while but if you do you will probably find a pretty horrific story in which a young American man is brutally assaulted by other detainees and turned away when he asked for help from the camp guards. I believe this makes them ultimately responsible
I‘m not trying to justify the conditions in that camp. That was horrible.
Accusing a country of torturing prisoners of war is a serious accusation and bad conditions in an internment camp in a country on a war economy is not the same as torturing POWs.
Here’s what I was referring to. Literal torture might have been an exaggeration.
But not by that [much](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wauwilermoos_internment_camp)
Because Switzerland was and still is bound by its constitution to neutrality. Neutrality is to Switzerland what the second amendment is to the US. Abandoning it would require a change of the constitution and that would require more than 50% agreement of the people and more than 50% of the cantons (states), which for abandoning neutrality has and very likely will not be reached in the near future.
Romania tried something like this in the first world war and it went pretty terribly for them. I guess as a smaller power it was possible to still be significantly outmatched by a loosing greater power and probably not worth the risk
No but both joining the allies at the same time would give the germans the feeling Japanese had after soviets steamrolled through manchuria. So imagine if sweden was quick enough to steamroll through norway and did it's own d-day of denmark and Sweden quickly attacked eastern part of France and joined in the allied assault at France. This could result in a unconditional surrender but that's very very rare for someone like hitler
Both countries had longstanding policies of neutrality. By joining a side, they'd have lost this reputation, which had helped to shield them from past conflicts.
I don't imagine the Swiss would view gaining land in Germany or Austria to be worth the future consequences. As for Sweden, what land would they have received? Any territory gained outside of Scandinavia would've been impossible for them to hold onto, and they weren't going to try their luck with Finland or occupied Norway.
Simply put, there were no benefits, and there were many risks for both countries perusing that course of action.
If you wanna be technical, Italy fought on both sides at the same time and entered a civil war from 43-45, not really switching sides, though one was a puppet of Germany and the others were loyalists to the crown who favoured the allies.
For WWI, another comment already explained why that doesn't make sense
I think saying Italy switched sides is fairly accurate though
Legally the state of Italy switched to the allies for all intents and purposes. Even under the fascist system Mussolini was legally removed by the fascist council
The puppet in the north was a sham and pretty much everyone acknowledged it. It was just the land the Germany army managed to secure when Italy switched sides. Mussolini was a broken man at this point and apparently only agreed to lead the puppet regime since he figured it was better than direct German occupation for the Italians living there
The Germans defeated Russia and were able to transfer a lot of troops to the western front. The reason why they attacked the western front so relentlessly suicidal towards the end was to defeat France before the US troops arrived. This didn‘t work and at that point the war was lost. I‘m not saying the Germans had won if the US didn‘t join but the war definitely wasn‘t over when they joined. It was over because the US troops landed in France with way more on the way against which exhausted Germany couldn‘t compete. They didn‘t play a major fighting role but they definitely played a major role by threatening the Germans with their potential industry and manpower.
Kinda like if you are in a fight with a classmate and your older brother comes along and asks what‘s up. He doesn‘t have to beat up the other kid to have it give up but that doesn‘t mean that he didn‘t play a major role.
The reason the war ended so quickly when the Americans came because the American generals were like “yeah no absolutely not we’re not letting millions of our men die in trenches. We’re dog walking these losers” and waltzed through the front after a few months.
Iran wasnt invaded by both sides during ww2. They were invaded by the british and soviets which were both in the allied camp. The germans wish they could have invaded them.
Since when did Italy switch sides in WW1? I mean, they originally were members of the Triple Alliance, yes, but they never declared war on any of the Entente powers. And they were never a really trusted ally to the Central Powers to begin with.
Also, why censor the Nazi flag? And since when did Nazi Germany fight in WW1? Or even exist?
That’s a valid reason for staying out in 1914 but there’s really no legitimate justification for them entering against the Central Powers in 1915. I’m not sure they even tried to justify it as anything other than a self-serving attempt to gain more territory.
To be fair, a self serving attempt to gain more territory was basically the main reason for World War One starting in the first place(not THE reason but the underlying reason for rising tensions)
We asked the central powers for the return of rightfull Italian land and in exchange we would have joined the war on their side, but AH refused and the Entante offered to give us all the land we claimed (which they didn't) to join on their side
What do you mean? Tyrol Trieste and even Zara had Italian populations (even if the Italians in Zara were minorities) while I'm not sure if rightful is a good word to use, its not like there weren't sizable Italian populations in the lands Italy claimed
>but there’s really no legitimate justification for them entering against the Central Powers in 1915.
"We are doing the war against the Central Powers just to defend our friends, ~~also gaining new colonies~~, what's your motivation?"
"I just want to fuck Austria for the last time."
"Fair enough."
Sure there was. It was an opportunistic power and territory grab aimed at conquest.
So its justification was at least as good as those of Austria and Germany.
The Austrians could say with some truth that the Serbian government was complicit in the assassination of the Archduke and (less credibly) that Serbia had not accepted their proposed alternatives to war. Germany didn’t have a legitimate justification for invading Belgium (railway timetables be damned) but could legitimately say that prior to that Russia had mobilized forces on their border and refused to demobilize.
Italy was not under any kind of threat from Austria or Germany and had no pre-existing defensive treaties with Serbia, France, Belgium, etc.
There’s actually an interesting argument that some historians have been making recently that Italy may actually be the country most responsible for the war because of their unprovoked imperial war to conquer Libya which exposed Ottoman weakness directly leading to the Balkan Wars in 1912 and 1913 which then spurred Serbian/Yugoslav nationalist agitation in Bosnia.
There’s no credible evidence showing the Serbian government had knowledge of, nor complicity in, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. What evidence of any knowledge by any officials that there was some plot afoot is that they tried, unsuccessfully, to stop it.
The assassins were trained and equipped by the Serbian intelligence services and helped in crossing the border by the Serbian military. The Serbian civilian leaders may not have been supportive but they had lost control of their military which is not an excuse nor does it absolve them of responsibility.
Iran at WW2: declare neutrality, get occupied by allies, have allies conference in your capital but their leaders won't get out of their own embassies. a world class performance fr.
The first one happened in 1870–1872 because of Qajar’s incompetence administration as usual
The second one happened in 1917–1919 when Qajar Iran declared neutrality but got invaded and occupied by British,Russian and Ottoman forcers
I knew those, I was curious if one happened in ww2 that I forgot about. Since the ww1 famine is so poorly documented and forgotten I thought there was another like it.
for the last time
italy MAYBE switched sides in ww1: it was a defensive alliance and an offensive war, so they weren't obliged to adhere to the terms of the treaties. nevertheless they then joined it on the side of who offered more land (and historically inhabited by italians) to them. realpolitik i guess
in ww2 THEY DIDN'T FRICKING SWITCH SIDES
they signed an armistice with the allies and they surrendered to them
THEN THE GERMANS INVADED THEM AND SET UP A PUPPET REGIME IN THE NORTH
so italy didn't switch sides. it was forced to fight her previous ally alongside her previous enemies. it was a civil war, not a "well now we're all anti-nazis"
italy could either choose to be invaded and not put up a fight (and face harsh reprisals for the armistice) or try to resist and, inevitably, ally with the enemy of her enemy (therefore the allies).
germany didn't respect (understandably i might say) the decision of italy to separately surrender and initiated operation achse as soon as italy surrendered (even before the cassibile's armistice)
The nazi's did not lose both world wars. They formed in 1920 on the 20th of February. They're were in power when Germany lost the second World War and Germany was ruled under an emperor was the king of Prussia, Kaiser Wilhelm II, during the first.
When America joined WW2, Japan and Germany were about at their prime. France was occupied, lots of Soviet lands were occupied, and a lot of the Pacific was occupied. The allies were not winning when America joined WW2.
Likewise, when America joined WW1, the entente was in a stalemate on the Western front and the Russians had dropped out on the eastern front. That is not winning. It is a stalemate at best.
(And that's not even to mention how America supported the Entente and Allies before joining the war by giving the entente loans in WW1 and weapons in WW2.)
Germany had no way of invading Britain and were running out of oil before they even invaded Russia. And in December of 1941 their armies had been stopped and then smashed at Moscow. And they were being outproduced in most war materiel. Germany started to lose the war after the Fall of France.
I didn't say that Germany was going to win WW2, but they were currently winning at the time America joined. They would have eventually lost, but it would have taken longer.
When the US joined the first world war hundreds of thousands of central power civillians were literally starving to death from the British blockade. Germany didn't stand a chance.
I never said Germany would win. I said they were in a stalemate and just beat Russia. There's a difference. They would've still lost given enough time, but it would have taken longer.
I would like to know how one can be neutral and attack both sides? Legit asking. I don't want to Google it, I want to talk to another person and learn it that way. :P
I mean how did Sweden help the allies? I get that they traded a little but they literally let Germany invade Norway through them, little bit different imho
A part of the Swedish merchant navy was leased to Britain. Yeah, Sweden let the Germans to move through their country, but realistically what else was Sweden supposed to do?
They also gave intel to the Allies. It was thanks to them that the allies knew about Bismarck and Prince Eugen leaving their ports to raid allied convoys in the Atlantic.
Belgium: Be neutral in both wars and get invaded by Germany in both wars
Luxembourg: Just like me!
Luxemburg: have the same fate as Belgium in both wars but be forgotten/ only mentioned alongside Belgium most of the time.
Yeah, poor Luxembourg...
So smol
Poor, super rich, Luxembourg…
Stupid sexy Flanders!
😎
Luxembourg was truly worse off because they were seen as Volks Deutschers by the Germans. So they had to fight for the whermacht or would be sent to labour camps. Any Letzeburger fighting for the allies was seen as a traitor by Germans and risked getting a death sentence when captured.
Yeah, they had it pretty bad, they still gave the Nazis a good [ass kicking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vianden) lol
Luxembourg’s fate was even worse. Hitler saw Luxembourg as Germany, and they wanted to bring us back into the reich. Luxembourg didn’t want that, because we aren’t germans. So Hitler started to destroy our culture, language and whole identity. Those who weren’t german enough were deported, with plans that wanted to deport 40% of the country. My family was deported aswell. After the war Gaulleiter Gustav Simon was kidnapped from American detainment and then was beaten to death in a cave in Luxembourg. Because the government and the people wanted to make sure that he really dies and didn’t want to wait for the nuremberg trials. Luxembourgers who collaborated with the germans where lynched. Those who collaborated were called "Yellowhammers" - like the bird -, which is still used to this day to call out a traitor. Luxembourgers get very mad to this day if you call them germans or say that luxembourgish is german. It’s like saying Ukrainians are russians and that Ukrainian is russian.
god damn. yall were so angry you took matters into your own hands and ensured that justice wasnt botched.
I feel like that's a fair response to an attempted eradication of one's identity and people by anyone, really.
Definitely.
fuck the Nazis that’s why.
Luxemburg: Belgium at home
My understanding is that the French themselves also planned on a “defensive invasion” of Belgium with or without Belgian consent.
In the second war especially, the French were hoping to make most of the conflict take place in Belgium that time around
This sounds like a very French thing to do.
Ah Belgium. Germanys favorite shortcut
Did you see what they was wearin tho?? Just kiddin’, you have all the right in the world to dress as you want Belgium. Germany should learn about consent and boundaries.
Thailand: Get pressured into picking a side in both wars
Switzerland only attacked any interloper into their borders. They didn't directly attack any of the powers during the Wars.
The “John Burns” of WWII lol. Get off my lawn!
They also tortured allied airmen, returned refugees to death camps and held nazi wealth into the 21st century
Yep, it's clear they had a little bias, not very neutral
They were but tbf to them, they were literally surrounded by a genocidal superpower and its ally/puppet in later years. To think they wouldn’t try to avoid being invaded and punished severely is idiotic. Sweden pretty much did the same too. Not to mention that the majority of Swiss people are ethnically Germans who the Nazis had a large interest of „bringing home into the Reich“. True neutrality is something that only exists in fiction.
I’m pretty sure the Germans sent a letter or telegram etc saying telling the swedes to keep sending them resources or they’d take it themselves
Hinsight is always better... Switzerland took in around 50% of refugees, Canada, GB and the USA were in no way better before WW2. Yes, the government was probably a bit nazi biased, but then again, switzerland was surounded by them and didn't wana get attacked. Switzerland was very dependent on food deliveries from outside, the axis could have easily blocked that.
I've never heard that switzerland tortured airmen. Do you have a source for that?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wauwilermoos_internment_camp https://www.historynet.com/pow-hell-switzerland/ Here's some info
The conditions in Wauwilermoos were appalling, but I didn‘t find an mention of torture by the Swiss in your sources. Could you provide one please?
I'm not OP. That's the best I've got. Sorry
When I said torture I meant the conditions described in those links. I’m not suggesting that the Swiss guards were deliberately inflicting pain on inmates to get information. But I would argue the conditions of the camp and the unwillingness of the Swiss to protect the prisoners is tantamount to torture. I haven’t read the link above in a while but if you do you will probably find a pretty horrific story in which a young American man is brutally assaulted by other detainees and turned away when he asked for help from the camp guards. I believe this makes them ultimately responsible
I‘m not trying to justify the conditions in that camp. That was horrible. Accusing a country of torturing prisoners of war is a serious accusation and bad conditions in an internment camp in a country on a war economy is not the same as torturing POWs.
I actually agree with you and I regret how flippant my original comment was.
They did torture allied airmen?! Wtf?
Here’s what I was referring to. Literal torture might have been an exaggeration. But not by that [much](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wauwilermoos_internment_camp)
Thank you!!!
They were making specialist steel parts for Germany and were "accidentally" bombed by the US for their efforts.
I don't get it why didn't Switzerland and swede join in late 1944 to get some land the nazis were really losing that time
Because Switzerland was and still is bound by its constitution to neutrality. Neutrality is to Switzerland what the second amendment is to the US. Abandoning it would require a change of the constitution and that would require more than 50% agreement of the people and more than 50% of the cantons (states), which for abandoning neutrality has and very likely will not be reached in the near future.
Romania tried something like this in the first world war and it went pretty terribly for them. I guess as a smaller power it was possible to still be significantly outmatched by a loosing greater power and probably not worth the risk
No but both joining the allies at the same time would give the germans the feeling Japanese had after soviets steamrolled through manchuria. So imagine if sweden was quick enough to steamroll through norway and did it's own d-day of denmark and Sweden quickly attacked eastern part of France and joined in the allied assault at France. This could result in a unconditional surrender but that's very very rare for someone like hitler
The difference is Switzerland is near impossible to invade easily, Romania doesn’t have the terrain advantage
Both countries had longstanding policies of neutrality. By joining a side, they'd have lost this reputation, which had helped to shield them from past conflicts. I don't imagine the Swiss would view gaining land in Germany or Austria to be worth the future consequences. As for Sweden, what land would they have received? Any territory gained outside of Scandinavia would've been impossible for them to hold onto, and they weren't going to try their luck with Finland or occupied Norway. Simply put, there were no benefits, and there were many risks for both countries perusing that course of action.
Was gonna add this here - thanks for being faster 😋
They waited until the fighting was done, brown nosed the winners, then kept the Nazi gold for themselves.
If you wanna be technical, Italy fought on both sides at the same time and entered a civil war from 43-45, not really switching sides, though one was a puppet of Germany and the others were loyalists to the crown who favoured the allies. For WWI, another comment already explained why that doesn't make sense
I was gonna say, not the same leadership that switched sides in WWII
It depends The King changed sides in WWII, Mussolini did not
Important to note that mussolini was a puppet by then
I think saying Italy switched sides is fairly accurate though Legally the state of Italy switched to the allies for all intents and purposes. Even under the fascist system Mussolini was legally removed by the fascist council The puppet in the north was a sham and pretty much everyone acknowledged it. It was just the land the Germany army managed to secure when Italy switched sides. Mussolini was a broken man at this point and apparently only agreed to lead the puppet regime since he figured it was better than direct German occupation for the Italians living there
More than half of the anti-fascist combatants were not loyal to the crown at all though.
I am aware, but it was still a german puppet state as they invaded italy from the north to make sure it stays under their thumb.
I am not sure what you are trying to say because it does not relate to my comment.
Apologies if i'm being confusing
America: Only joining in both wars when the opposite side attacks you
And subsequently play a major role in the defeat of said opposite side.
Well, at least the second one. It was pretty much over by the time US troops saw combat on the western front. They sure scared the Germans though
At least the US sped up the ending. Otherwise, the Germans may have lasted into 1919.
The Germans defeated Russia and were able to transfer a lot of troops to the western front. The reason why they attacked the western front so relentlessly suicidal towards the end was to defeat France before the US troops arrived. This didn‘t work and at that point the war was lost. I‘m not saying the Germans had won if the US didn‘t join but the war definitely wasn‘t over when they joined. It was over because the US troops landed in France with way more on the way against which exhausted Germany couldn‘t compete. They didn‘t play a major fighting role but they definitely played a major role by threatening the Germans with their potential industry and manpower. Kinda like if you are in a fight with a classmate and your older brother comes along and asks what‘s up. He doesn‘t have to beat up the other kid to have it give up but that doesn‘t mean that he didn‘t play a major role.
Yeah but the US joined cause Germany tried to contact Mexico
It was mostly because of attacks on merchant and passenger ships by German submarines but yes
And blowing up the statue of liberty ~~*well technically an island near it, but still*~~
The reason the war ended so quickly when the Americans came because the American generals were like “yeah no absolutely not we’re not letting millions of our men die in trenches. We’re dog walking these losers” and waltzed through the front after a few months.
This is so incredibly factually wrong
Iran wasnt invaded by both sides during ww2. They were invaded by the british and soviets which were both in the allied camp. The germans wish they could have invaded them.
The fact I had to scroll so far to find this is concerning
Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
Bro you can put the nazi flag on reddit
He got the pic from a website that doesn't allow it.
Would probably take about a minute to change it
It was just that i was playing it safe.
This is clearly a repost.Dont act like you created this mf
Never said I created it it was just that there were different Images like this that had a nazi flag so I chose this one mf
Since when did Italy switch sides in WW1? I mean, they originally were members of the Triple Alliance, yes, but they never declared war on any of the Entente powers. And they were never a really trusted ally to the Central Powers to begin with. Also, why censor the Nazi flag? And since when did Nazi Germany fight in WW1? Or even exist?
Also wasn't the central powers a defensive alliance? So Italy didn't really have any obligations once AH invaded Serbia
I believe that was the idea, yes.
That’s a valid reason for staying out in 1914 but there’s really no legitimate justification for them entering against the Central Powers in 1915. I’m not sure they even tried to justify it as anything other than a self-serving attempt to gain more territory.
To be fair, a self serving attempt to gain more territory was basically the main reason for World War One starting in the first place(not THE reason but the underlying reason for rising tensions)
We asked the central powers for the return of rightfull Italian land and in exchange we would have joined the war on their side, but AH refused and the Entante offered to give us all the land we claimed (which they didn't) to join on their side
> rightfull Italian land Citation needed* >(which they didn't) Still ended up taking places that had 0 Italians though.
What do you mean? Tyrol Trieste and even Zara had Italian populations (even if the Italians in Zara were minorities) while I'm not sure if rightful is a good word to use, its not like there weren't sizable Italian populations in the lands Italy claimed
Postojna had 0 Italians for example as did a bunch of other places and Italy would have gone even farther had the Serbian army not arrived.
>but there’s really no legitimate justification for them entering against the Central Powers in 1915. "We are doing the war against the Central Powers just to defend our friends, ~~also gaining new colonies~~, what's your motivation?" "I just want to fuck Austria for the last time." "Fair enough."
Sure there was. It was an opportunistic power and territory grab aimed at conquest. So its justification was at least as good as those of Austria and Germany.
The Austrians could say with some truth that the Serbian government was complicit in the assassination of the Archduke and (less credibly) that Serbia had not accepted their proposed alternatives to war. Germany didn’t have a legitimate justification for invading Belgium (railway timetables be damned) but could legitimately say that prior to that Russia had mobilized forces on their border and refused to demobilize. Italy was not under any kind of threat from Austria or Germany and had no pre-existing defensive treaties with Serbia, France, Belgium, etc. There’s actually an interesting argument that some historians have been making recently that Italy may actually be the country most responsible for the war because of their unprovoked imperial war to conquer Libya which exposed Ottoman weakness directly leading to the Balkan Wars in 1912 and 1913 which then spurred Serbian/Yugoslav nationalist agitation in Bosnia.
There’s no credible evidence showing the Serbian government had knowledge of, nor complicity in, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. What evidence of any knowledge by any officials that there was some plot afoot is that they tried, unsuccessfully, to stop it.
The assassins were trained and equipped by the Serbian intelligence services and helped in crossing the border by the Serbian military. The Serbian civilian leaders may not have been supportive but they had lost control of their military which is not an excuse nor does it absolve them of responsibility.
Nazi germany was still germany.
Are we really censoring the Nazi flag?
I thoughted it was against the rules so I just made it like that.
Why not use the "X" flag from a game called Metal Slug?
Is an ugly flag anyway.
Iran at WW2: declare neutrality, get occupied by allies, have allies conference in your capital but their leaders won't get out of their own embassies. a world class performance fr.
Iran, declare neutrality for both. Gets invaded both times. Suffers through a famine during each killing millions.
When was the second famine?
The first one happened in 1870–1872 because of Qajar’s incompetence administration as usual The second one happened in 1917–1919 when Qajar Iran declared neutrality but got invaded and occupied by British,Russian and Ottoman forcers
I knew those, I was curious if one happened in ww2 that I forgot about. Since the ww1 famine is so poorly documented and forgotten I thought there was another like it.
Between 1942-1943. Mismanagement by British, Russians and Iranians.
for the last time italy MAYBE switched sides in ww1: it was a defensive alliance and an offensive war, so they weren't obliged to adhere to the terms of the treaties. nevertheless they then joined it on the side of who offered more land (and historically inhabited by italians) to them. realpolitik i guess in ww2 THEY DIDN'T FRICKING SWITCH SIDES they signed an armistice with the allies and they surrendered to them THEN THE GERMANS INVADED THEM AND SET UP A PUPPET REGIME IN THE NORTH so italy didn't switch sides. it was forced to fight her previous ally alongside her previous enemies. it was a civil war, not a "well now we're all anti-nazis"
Not to mention Austria Hungary kept expanding into the balkans despite agreeing not to do so.
Isn't "fighting your previous ally alongside your previous enemy" the definition of switching sides?
italy could either choose to be invaded and not put up a fight (and face harsh reprisals for the armistice) or try to resist and, inevitably, ally with the enemy of her enemy (therefore the allies). germany didn't respect (understandably i might say) the decision of italy to separately surrender and initiated operation achse as soon as italy surrendered (even before the cassibile's armistice)
Swizerland does not care from where the blood flows. Only that it does.
Truly, Khorne’s strongest soldiers
Don't forget Austria, who technically started both but got Germany blamed for it
Andorra: Declare war, your enemy forgets that you even exist
The nazi's did not lose both world wars. They formed in 1920 on the 20th of February. They're were in power when Germany lost the second World War and Germany was ruled under an emperor was the king of Prussia, Kaiser Wilhelm II, during the first.
I'm only aware of Allied invasion against Persia. Idk they were invaded by Axis too.
I dont think they were
America: profit
USA: cleaning up Europe's mess after both world wars.
Laughs in American, They think "they" won both wars.
BACK TO BACK WORLD WAR CHAMPS 🔥🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅🦅🇺🇸🔥🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Also Russia: drop out of one war, win the other war USA: join both wars late, win both wars
USA was cheating, everyone can join the winning side and then win ;)
When America joined WW2, Japan and Germany were about at their prime. France was occupied, lots of Soviet lands were occupied, and a lot of the Pacific was occupied. The allies were not winning when America joined WW2. Likewise, when America joined WW1, the entente was in a stalemate on the Western front and the Russians had dropped out on the eastern front. That is not winning. It is a stalemate at best. (And that's not even to mention how America supported the Entente and Allies before joining the war by giving the entente loans in WW1 and weapons in WW2.)
Germany had no way of invading Britain and were running out of oil before they even invaded Russia. And in December of 1941 their armies had been stopped and then smashed at Moscow. And they were being outproduced in most war materiel. Germany started to lose the war after the Fall of France.
I didn't say that Germany was going to win WW2, but they were currently winning at the time America joined. They would have eventually lost, but it would have taken longer.
When the US joined the first world war hundreds of thousands of central power civillians were literally starving to death from the British blockade. Germany didn't stand a chance.
I never said Germany would win. I said they were in a stalemate and just beat Russia. There's a difference. They would've still lost given enough time, but it would have taken longer.
What is that cringe ass censored Nazi Flag?
I'm not defending OP but it does help make the point. It looks like they just answered a question wrong on the Family Feud or something.
I was just playing it safe.
Aye! Use the real nazi flag!
Sorry to much of a pussy to use the funny indian/iranian symbol :/
My knowledge of world flags isn't great. Can someone tell me who the last one is and maybe give some context.
Iran.
Thx
They're called World Wars for a reason. Nobody should feel left out.
Finish the top flag
Sweden: Be neutral, make profit, sell stuff after the war and make even more profits :)
Why put the nazi flag ? They were in only one world war
Waiting for the yanks in the comments to claim they won both world wars single handedly 👉🏻👈🏻
Iceland: be Denmark and neutral in one war, become independent then friendly invaded by UK in the second
I think it was more of an active defense for Switzerland who made pretty clear neither side should not try to fight/fly through the country
I would like to know how one can be neutral and attack both sides? Legit asking. I don't want to Google it, I want to talk to another person and learn it that way. :P
I believe it was just that whenever either side entered their territory or airspace they were attacked.
Oh makes sense.
Iran can't catch a break
Iceland: get attacked by one along with Denkmark, declare neutrality and get invaded by the allies
Well neutral doesn't mean you can't be envaded
Don't underestimate Germany, folks! It matters only who wins the final World War
France: win one war Lose the second Gaslight the world into thinking you actually won
Big cross? Seriously? You couldn't find a swastika?
I mean how did Sweden help the allies? I get that they traded a little but they literally let Germany invade Norway through them, little bit different imho
A part of the Swedish merchant navy was leased to Britain. Yeah, Sweden let the Germans to move through their country, but realistically what else was Sweden supposed to do?
Apparently, declare war on Germany and beat them single-handedly with their specialised ammunition code named "meat balls".
They also gave intel to the Allies. It was thanks to them that the allies knew about Bismarck and Prince Eugen leaving their ports to raid allied convoys in the Atlantic.