>>7360983Napoleon conquered all of Europe, but failed in Russia. Does that make him a shitty leader?
Hitler conquered all of Europe, but failed in Russia. Why does that make him a shitty leader? He blitzed France in 2 weeks. He got 30 kilometers of Moscow. He captured Stalingrad and was moving into the Caucus. Not him personally, but you get the idea. Had he won, he would be considered the single greatest leader in history, the man not only conquering Europe, but the World. Caesar, Friedrich, and Napoleon would pale in comparison to him. But because he lost, people say "hurr he was an idiot for attacking Russia" yet he was close to taking Russia, so much so that Americans threw everything they had into Russia, and without their Lend-Lease Program Russia would be almost certainly conquered. Don't shit "muh ROSSIA STRONK" meme, Stalin himself said in a Tehran meeting that without the US they would have lost. Khruschev confirms this in his memoirs, as well as Lazar Kaganovich in his.
Because we know history today, we call him an idiot. Because we know of the massive manpower Russia had at its disposal, we say it was an impossible attack (Nazi spies underestimated the Soviet manpower reserves, by some 50x fewer than the number the Soviets actually had.)
Ignore the other Anon, he's just retarded. You bother with the movement because you know it's true, and because it is the only hope of a future not just for you, but for your offspring as well.
