What do you expect, people think Hitler was good for most Germans and restored economy and made trains run on time, and the defeat part oh well. Because that’s what movies show. And that’s because for commies Hitler was just a variation of the west, probably less capricious, while for the west Hitler was bad, but good against commies. So both would show Nazis as being better than their opponent.
He wasn’t even good for the German economy though, the Nazis produces a large GDP growth through massive military spending, they bankrupted the country well before the war was over, and had they won the war, the German economy would have crashed immediately.
They’ve also ran a few state-level scams and Ponzi schemes to have the funds for that military and other spending.
Their business model was - step 1, cheat to have money, step 2, use money to rearm, step 3, conquer and loot, thus get funds that way, step 4 probably would be to force some peace, then rearm, then rinse and repeat, but they didn’t manage to capture a few strategic areas they needed in time. So they had fuel shortages, food shortages, and ultimately lost.
EDIT: Still, while I wasn’t going to compliment them or something, it can be a valid strategy for survival to use anything to accumulate some operational power ; I can see a few nations (not all of them have recognized states) on the map for which it may be necessary to survive in the following decade. But Nazis didn’t have to take such risks, it was ideological for them that theft and robbery are better than honest work.
There was no way Germany could have “won” anyway, unless it resulted in literally conquering the entire world. They were in a state of constant “mission creep” (to use a modern term). Early it was “retake the land we lost in the first war”, then it was “Lebensraum im Osten”, then Africa, the entire Soviet Union, etc.
What do you expect, people think Hitler was good for most Germans and restored economy and made trains run on time, and the defeat part oh well. Because that’s what movies show. And that’s because for commies Hitler was just a variation of the west, probably less capricious, while for the west Hitler was bad, but good against commies. So both would show Nazis as being better than their opponent.
He wasn’t even good for the German economy though, the Nazis produces a large GDP growth through massive military spending, they bankrupted the country well before the war was over, and had they won the war, the German economy would have crashed immediately.
They’ve also ran a few state-level scams and Ponzi schemes to have the funds for that military and other spending.
Their business model was - step 1, cheat to have money, step 2, use money to rearm, step 3, conquer and loot, thus get funds that way, step 4 probably would be to force some peace, then rearm, then rinse and repeat, but they didn’t manage to capture a few strategic areas they needed in time. So they had fuel shortages, food shortages, and ultimately lost.
Their system also only ran as far as it did because of the so called Mefo-bills
These fit under “state-level scams”.
EDIT: Still, while I wasn’t going to compliment them or something, it can be a valid strategy for survival to use anything to accumulate some operational power ; I can see a few nations (not all of them have recognized states) on the map for which it may be necessary to survive in the following decade. But Nazis didn’t have to take such risks, it was ideological for them that theft and robbery are better than honest work.
There was no way Germany could have “won” anyway, unless it resulted in literally conquering the entire world. They were in a state of constant “mission creep” (to use a modern term). Early it was “retake the land we lost in the first war”, then it was “Lebensraum im Osten”, then Africa, the entire Soviet Union, etc.