Why was the Krigesmarine so pussyfied ? >Battle to decide the supremacy of the seas. >less than 10 ships sunk

Why was the Krigesmarine so pussyfied ?

>Battle to decide the supremacy of the seas
>less than 10 ships sunk
>claim victory
>never engage another battle before surrendering your whole fleet

What is the point in having a navy if you're not going to use it ?

  1. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    The German "Navy" (Not Kriegsmarine, it was the High Seas Fleet) was worthless and a inevitably failed gamble to compete with England's Royal Navy. Jutland was the RN's greatest victory since Trafalgar. We sank a battleship and a flagship battle cruiser and numerous other ships at relatively minor cost to ourselves.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >We sank a battleship and a flagship battle cruiser and numerous other ships at relatively minor cost to ourselves.
      Cope. RN lost 6 cruisers for 5 KM cruisers. RN lost 8 destroyers for 1 RN 19th century obsolete destroyer-equivalent.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        If the German losses were so minor then why did the High Seas Fleet retreat with their tails between their legs and nothing was ever heard of them again until when their whole navy committed suicide in 1919?

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          The strategic British victory was demonstrating the RN was still larger and more powerful, bottling up the KM
          The tactical German victory was sinking almost twice their lost tonnage

  2. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Angloid cope thread.

    REMINDER: You are a slave to your former colony and are only known for having a funny accent. THANK YOU

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >asking why the Kriegsmarine didn't even try to defeat the RN
      >anglo cope
      interesting, bait like comment

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      I prefer to draw attention to the fact that a Frankish band of conquerers subjugated the native Anglos and became a permanent Norman ruling class, not unlike the Manchus and the Han in China. Except these Normans were never thrown off.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Because the Manchus were barbarians who assimilated to Chinese culture. While the Normans were superior to native Anglos in every way.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >While the Normans were superior to native Anglos in every way.

          And? So what?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            native anglos were raped, shaved and enslaved. permanently.

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              >pic
              He later fat in life. The real life Robert Baratheon…

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                speak proper english or fuck off jap

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >jap
                Med.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        This really isn't the "own" you think it is. Everyone in the UK these days has Norman ancestry, being butthurt about it is kinda like having Greeks still argue about Doric VS Ionic
        >t. someone whose surname is literally D'Arcy

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          You’re a french rape baby.
          Raped, shaved and enslaved.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            don't care. Normans are an intrinsic part of English history and culture now, they're interwoven into our national fabric and literal DNA.
            Northern France is genuinely the most similar to England part of mainland Europe.

  3. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >HAHA ANGLOS GOT KEKED BY NORM-ACK

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >mr stark, i don't feel so good

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >12 million of your people ethnically cleansed by the Soviets
      >forced to carry the blame for the entire war and everyone refuses to acknowledge anything bad was done to you

      being German is a unique kind of suffering

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >being German is a unique kind of suffering
        is there any other people that could bear such a burden?

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Armenian. You get the genocided off half your land part, but not the great power actually relevant on the world stage part.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      So you support genicede tranny?

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        You do so why shouldn't we?

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          We never but you do?

          Classic commie

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Kill yourself.

  4. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >German tactical victory
    >English strategic victory
    every fucking time

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >big empire has more to fall back on and can focus more on overall strategy
      >Smaller, upstart empire has no such luxury

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      The strategic British victory was demonstrating the RN was still larger and more powerful, bottling up the KM
      The tactical German victory was sinking almost twice their lost tonnage

      >big empire has more to fall back on and can focus more on overall strategy
      >Smaller, upstart empire has no such luxury

      German biggest problem is not getting America, Romania and possibly Japan on team side of Central Power.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        no, the biggest problem was having a retarded midwit as emperor who managed to fuck up everything Bismarck had carefully laid out for him

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >America
        America would never have joined the central powers, that’s insanity.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          It can decided whatever Americas joined or remain neutral.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        "Getting America on their side" isn't exactly a trivial matter. It's not like you just click "improve relations" and suddenly your national interests and domestic views align.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's true though. The British blockade of Germany remained unbroken and the High Seas Fleet was unable to ever leave port again, which meant that the British controlled the oceans and could starve Germany.

  5. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >that large of tonnage difference in the losses
    Yeah angloids really didn't have the best sailors or naval tradition, just a big navy

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      it's one battle

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        A massive battle and closest thing to a even matched battle he royal navy has faced, even if the RN still had every advantag, and they still lose terribly kek

        Bongoids are just kinda incompetent.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >that large of tonnage difference in the losses
          Yeah angloids really didn't have the best sailors or naval tradition, just a big navy

          >Muh kay dee

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Yeah angloids really didn't have the best sailors or naval tradition
      Admiral Tirpitz literally spoke English and sent his daughters to school in England lol. The Japanese Navy was also modelled off the British, with Admiral Togo having studied in the UK itself and a Scottish naval aviator having taught the Japanese carrier operations (pic related, Admiral Togo and Sempill examining an airplane for carrier use)
      The UK's naval rivals were its own students.

  6. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >What is the point in having a navy if you're not going to use it ?

    Wasn't one of the theses of the causes of WW1 related to the navy.

    Basically, AFAIK, the germans were building up the navy to compete with the britcucks. But the result was that the navy that was built was too expensive, so they didn't want to use it?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *