Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I'm thinking again...Ah oh......

If Hitler had stopped the war at the end of 1940, fascism would have controlled all of mainland Europe. He could have made peace with England and isolated it, and simply left the Russians alone. He could have done a trade deal with America...cause they usually follow the money trail. I doubt if America would have attempted to liberate Europe if trade and a modicum of freedom had be restored. Europe might still have been fascist today. ..Ironically, it was the march to Moscow just as Napoleon did that fell Hitler...What a different world it would be today if the war ended in 1940. Interesting to speculate about.

Any thoughts?

His objective was Russia, so that's a pointless postulation.

Britain making peace with Germany in 1940- now, that's a very interesting area.

It could have been facist for a while, but after Hitler died I expect things would have fallen appary. Germany would have had to go off war-footing eventually, they wouldn't have had the troops to maintain real control over all of Europe, people would get pissy and rebel ...

And of course, if any of the countries Germany had occupied had a lot of oil, the USA would decide that it was their moral duty to, uh, liberate them.

Plenty did and no they wouldn't, because Germany would have been selling.

Oil supplies only need to be guaranteed by force if held by a nation that won't let you have it.

Umm...have we forgotten the treaties that were made before and during the war? Some of them were broken and others would have remain intact. Like the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Had the war ended in 1940 then the Soviets and Nazis would have fulfill the agreement of non-agression.

And no bad thing, seeing as the Russians were being forced to give the Germans ludicrous amount of stuff under that agreement.

But as any student of the period knows, Hitler's entire motivation was to go East. Just read Mein kampf.

Or rather don't, because it is very boring. Find a summary.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And no bad thing, seeing as the Russians were being forced to give the Germans ludicrous amount of stuff under that agreement.

But as any student of the period knows. Hitler's entire motivation was to go East. Just read Mein kampf.

Or rather don't, because it is very boring. Find a summary. Though if he was advised to not go east, and listened. Things might have turned out much differently for Europe and trade....Much differently....Can you imagine how this would of really changed history?....What allies would of been formed?

After reading a couple of pages... I put it back in the shelf. Mein Kampf was a rip off of The Communist Manifesto (which I may add is far more superior in both literary and political.) Bah! Let us read History books.

To The Library!

No, you don't understand- you may as well ask what would happen if there was no war at all.

The only reason Hitler did ANY of it was to go East. Poland was just in the way, and he thought the West would not fight for Poland. The only reason he then fought the west was because they did. And so on.

It was more or less a joke.

Anyway, I do not believe that Hitler could have maintained control of Europe. Or if he did, immagine the power struggles after he died.

Maybe, but the ideals would have endured- much of Europe was willing to accept the politics, and imagine a post-war Europe with no Communist Russia.

Really, as I say, the area to look at is the UK making peace. It's an itneresting 'What if?' that historians have debated about over time. The basics are:

1. The UK lost a LOT fighting Germany all that time. And I mean a lot. She lost merchant domination of the seas because so much of her fleet was sunk by U-boats, she became hugely finanically indebted to the USA, who delberately targetted the UK in a power grab post-war, and she ultimately lost control of the Empire (though that was starting anyway)

2. Other than moral reasons, the UK had absolutely no self-interest at all in fighting Germany, because Germany had no real interest in fighting the UK if not necessary.

3. Germany really WANTED a seperate peace, and indeed was actually expecting one- surprised that the UK fought on after France went (and a reminder that the UK was the only country still fighting Germany at this time)

4. No UK in the war, no US involvement in Europe, no D-Day.

You can speculate forever based on those ideas.

first the occupied countries would have continued to resist, and the resist would have been more daring as it progressed. It wouldnt have ended until either all resistance was crushed or that of the Nazi regim was crushed
Second, why is the role of Japan forgotten/or not mentioned in all of this?

Well it's been awhile since I've read up on all the aspects of it, but I was under the impression that Japan in 1937, began a campaign to conquer China and wasn't all involved in the other aspects up to 1940.

Despite European issues, Japan would still be expanding her empire in Southeast Asia and the south Pacific.

Ush is right in several things. Hitler was always going to go east. One of the core principles of the Nazi agenda was "living space". Also, the end of Communism. One of the most well played betrayals in history is Hitler turning on Stalin. It's one of the things that Stalin never got over. He knew it made him look like a played fool in the eyes of others in his government.

Also, Germany never wanted to go to war with England. Hitler considered the British members of his proposed superior race. He would have been content to reach a peace accord with the UK and leave them to their own devices, for the time being. It's reasonable to assume that had that peace agreement been reached, the US would not have entered the war. (A majority of the UK were content to do nothing about Hitler, one of the few voices that rallied the cause was Churchill...one of the few world leaders who knew what Hitler had planned, because he actually read Mein Kampf and then almost single-handedly convinced Roosevelt that US partcipation in the war was essential) Let's also not forget that the Nazis had a lot of support in the US. Even after the US entered the war there was still considerable support for the Nazi government. Now, if the US hadn't entered the war and the UK had reached a peace agreement, then the most likely end result would have been a war with Russia, which Germany would likely have won. The biggest problem is France. The other countries that were either occupied by the Nazis or controlled by the fascist regime in Berlin would have been easily forgotten. But, Hitler was rabid over the conquest of France. The major driving force behind his political views was the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler's opinion was, "who are these governments to arbitrarily remove Germany's ability to bolster it's own economy and protect itself with a militarty?" And, in many respects, he was right. The restrictions and forced reparations imposed by Versailles were far too harsh. So, in several respects, the more reasonable point in time to have prevented a war would have been in 1919, at the signing of the treaty.

Also, the Nazi regime would have had no problem maintaining an empire on mainland Europe. The very nature of their government would have assured that. One of the lesser known facts about the Nazis, is that they had spent years establishing baby farms. They knew that a key to success after a victory in war, was going to be having the man power to support their operation.

The historical question about the UK making a peace deal with Germany is cited after the fall of France.

Since France and England were allies, wouldn't that kinda hurt a peace between Germany and England, homes?

Originally posted by finti

Second, why is the role of Japan forgotten/or not mentioned in all of this?

Because Debs didn't mention it.

Japan would have been a huge problem. But, I think it would have been less of a concern if the Japanese had conquered mainland China. Look how many governments China went through in the beginning of the century. Japan taking over would likely have been just another occupying government. But, they would likely have been more successful in maintaining control. Much like the other nationalistic, fascist-type governments, their methods go a long way towards staying in power.

this is one reason Japan and Germany made such excellent bedfellows. Because they were operating on teh assumption that their race was destined to be the rulers of their kind. Lets not forget that Germany and Japan both had major issues with Russia. Another reason for them signing a non-agression pact. So, I think that Germany and Japan would have created an even stronger relationship without the western allies to distract them. And they would likely have eventually carved up Russia, the same way Russia and the other allied nations did Europe, after WWII.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The historical question about the UK making a peace deal with Germany is cited after the fall of France.

I understand that. I'm sure England was scared shitless. But Hitler never wanted to get into a war with England. And there were many people in the pre-war government that made only shows of disdain for the German government. My point is that I believe that the fall of France would have only helped to strengthen the resolve of those in the UK that did not support peace. I don't denote any sentimentality on teh part of those who supported US intervention in teh war based on teh fall of France. Only that they saw themselves being next.

No, obviously, everyone knows, historically, that the UK was not going to do it- on ground of morality, on sympathy for France, and for sheer bloody mindedness.

The question is not might the UK have done it after France fell. The question is should it have. Would it be in a better position it it had? The points above are the outlines of why that might be so. That is the debate, and it is quite a notable one.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Since France and England were allies, wouldn't that kinda hurt a peace between Germany and England, homes?

As if that ever really has anything to do with it. Germany and Russia were allies, that didn't work out. One of the first things we did after France fell was to sink the French fleet, killing a heck of a lot of Frenchmen.

It's about national interest, not who you said your friends were.

doesnt change the fact that they was a vital factor in the war
that was the second sino-japanese war. Japan conquered Manchuria in 1931
lesser facts? man they showed these baby farms as Aryan propaganda in theaters all around before the break out of the war.

the problem they would face was the resistance poundering attacks in what we now would call terrorist attacks.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
As if that ever really has anything to do with it. Germany and Russia were allies, that didn't work out. One of the first things we did after France fell was to sink the French fleet, killing a heck of a lot of Frenchmen.

It's about national interest, not who you said your friends were.

Yo se pero, England and France had been homies for a long time, ese. In WWI they had eachother's backs, where Russia and Germany were gassing the hell out of eachother.

England/France and Russia/Germany have completely different relationships, homes.

yet the brits was chased back over the channel leaving France occupied by the Germans

during the World War II the world allies and neutrality seem to be just words

Should it have? No. Because despite Hitler's desire for a peace treaty, I think he would have still made gestures towards power over the British. It's no secret that there were Nazi sympathizers in teh British government. However, I believe that these supporters, in time, would have become more and more influenced by Berlin and Britiain would have ended up as little more than an english speaking Italy.

There's no arguing if peace was wanted by those British members of parliament or the Germans. But, how the Germans would have acted, covertly, after that peace had been reached is questionable.

Yet within living memory before 1914 we had been at war with France, and historically France has always been England's primary enemy.

France and England were only together in WWI because of Belgium; they were not actually enamoured of helping each other. Ditto in WWII for Poland. All alliances were those of convenience, not for any other reason- just as Russia/Germany was.

As soon as it was no longer expedient to shackle up with France we didn't think twice about annhilating their fleet- not something you do to an ally.

This is the point- it is ALL about self-interest, and it is in that spirit that the question about making a deal with Germany at this point is asked, because it seems almost certain that it would have been much etter for the UK.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Should it have? No. Because despite Hitler's desire for a peace treaty, I think he would have still made gestures towards power over the British. It's no secret that there were Nazi sympathizers in teh British government. However, I believe that these supporters, in time, would have become more and more influenced by Berlin and Britiain would have ended up as little more than an english speaking Italy.

There's no arguing if peace was wanted by those British members of parliament or the Germans. But, how the Germans would have acted, covertly, after that peace had been reached is questionable.

Very few historians would agree that the UK should not have done it on practical grounds.

The argument to not have done so can only be moral.

Originally posted by finti
doesnt change the fact that they was a vital factor in the war

lol, doesn't change my answer though.


Originally posted by finti
lesser facts? man they showed these baby farms as Aryan propaganda in theaters all around before the break out of the war.

And if I thought there were many posters here who had been around before the war to see those movies, I would not have used the term 'lesser know'. As it is, I don't think a lot of people posting here are familiar with that fact. I've spent a long time studying WWII, so I say lesser known because I don't know how many here have as well.

Originally posted by finti
the problem they would face was the resistance poundering attacks in what we now would call terrorist attacks.

True. No argument. But I don't think that the resistence would have been as successful as you're hoping.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
But, how the Germans would have acted, covertly, after that peace had been reached is questionable.

I don't think its very questionable, ese. The Nazis would have eventually launched their Blitzkreig on England. IF the British signed a non-aggression pact with Germany, they'd looking over their shoulder the whole time, like a boy-in-blue in a bad Mexican neighborhood.

We no doubt would have eventually entered with or without Pearl Harbor.

The Nazis didn't have the capacity to launch a blitzkrieg on England.

This kind of debate requires actual knowledge of the subject, I am afraid.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yet within living memory before 1914 we had been at war with France, and historically France has always been England's primary enemy.

France and England were only together in WWI because of Belgium; they were not actually enamoured of helping each other. Ditto in WWII for Poland. All alliances were those of convenience, not for any other reason- just as Russia/Germany was.

As soon as it was no longer expedient to shackle up with France we didn't think twice about annhilating their fleet- not something you do to an ally.

This is the point- it is ALL about self-interest, and it is in that spirit that the question about making a deal with Germany at this point is asked, because it seems almost certain that it would have been much etter for the UK.

I addressed that. I said it wouldn't have been out of sentimentality. Rather out of fear of being next.

We never would have been next.

point taken, here in Norway it is common knowledge due to well History classes at school

well the Nazi regim were unable to crush the resistance in the occupied countries, after all it was the resistance movement in these occupied countires that informed the allied about the situation. So it not the success I hope they achieve its what they might have done and achieved turning their eyes on the center of the regime instead of locally

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The Nazis didn't have the capacity to launch a blitzkrieg on England.


Why not? Would they have lacked the materiel? They sure as hell didn't lack the brazen audacity, homes.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
.

We no doubt would have eventually entered with or without Pearl Harbor.

Oh, no I don't think we would have entered the war if not for Pearl Harbour. Roosevelt allowed Pearl Harbour to occur because he knew that a huge majority of Americans were still feeling the effects of WWI, and had since that time become rabid isolationists. It's one of the reasons that Wilsons attempts to get the US to join the League of Nations were so unsuccessful. Even all those years later, few Americans could see the benefits of our participation in WWI.

They lacked the ability to cross the Channel.

there is something called water that seperate UK from the European continent, so so much for blietz krieg


maybe the rage of us Scandinavian seeing you sitting this one out would have led them to a new Viking raid the british isle tour

That couldn't have gone much worse than the British/French trying to help Scandinavia, for sure.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
We never would have been next.

I don't think you guys would have "never been next." Once you guys were the only ones left fighting, Germany would have had time to build up enough firepower and personnel to make an invasion, by air or sea, possible.


Despite Churchill saying you guys would fight to the last man.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
They lacked the ability to cross the Channel.

They had the ability to destroy your fleet, and eventually with the right strategy and without the aid of the US and Russia england miught have been in trouble. I agree though that a Blitzkrieg surely wasn't an option.

Germany would never, ever have had the resources to cross the channel. Nor the desire, seeing as Hitler was after Russia.

They would have done it if they could.

Originally posted by Bardock42
They had the ability to destroy your fleet, and eventually with the right strategy and without the aid of the US and Russia england miught have been in trouble. I agree though that a Blitzkrieg surely wasn't an option.

Actually no, they didn't have the ability to destroy the British fleet, which was one of their problems.

Meanwhile, Germany totally lacked the naval capacity to actually land the troops. Compare D-Day- very different story.

Thirdly... well, I am glad you know what 'Blitzkrieg' means, and why it could not have been done in this case. people throw that term around all the time without knowing what ti means.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
They lacked the ability to cross the Channel.

In 1940, The Nazis had the 2nd best planes in the world after the Jap Zero. I believe the Nazi planes were fuel-capable of bombing and returning home.

You don't conquer nations with medium bombers. Goering tried.

Again- the Germans lacked the capacity to launch an invasion across the Channel, and ALL the branches of the German military said so. They were trying to batter the UK into surrender, not invade.

I would also dispute that about the Zero, but another time.

true that help in 1940 was a farse, yet i do understand why though

Originally posted by finti
well the Nazi regim were unable to crush the resistance in the occupied countries, after all it was the resistance movement in these occupied countires that informed the allied about the situation. So it not the success I hope they achieve its what they might have done and achieved turning their eyes on the center of the regime instead of locally

Well, with all respect due these freedom fighters, a lot of their longevity came from the intervention of the US and Britain, in the form of covert ops missions behind enemy lines. For sure though, it was a back and forth relationship. The resistence in many countries helped to provide serious intelligence from inside the German borders.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I don't think you guys would have "never been next." Once you guys were the only ones left fighting, Germany would have had time to build up enough firepower and personnel to make an invasion, by air or sea, possible.


Despite Churchill saying you guys would fight to the last man. It does seem possible to make them surrender and then isolate them.

Whooooooo this is all getting very interesting...

still got their asses kicked by R.A.F

many of them was actually sodiers that never accepted the surrender, sure much of the equpment came by the aid of allies, but much of it was stolen from the germans as well, besides the equipment the didnt turn in

Originally posted by debbiejo
It does seem possible to make them surrender and then isolate them.

Whooooooo this is all getting very interesting...

Well, isolate and then surrender.

(to Bardock)

First of all, yes, it was a tactical error to switch to strategic bombing, but what does that have to do with what we were talking about? You were talking about the fleet- it was out of range of the German bombers.

If the pre-requisite for attack of the UK was air superiority over the British coastline, the Germans HAD it for more than long enough. At one point nearly all the south coast airbases were out of action. They had whatever opportunity that might have afforded. They didn't do it. Why not? They couldn't. Adolf Galland himself describes in detail how there was never going to be any invasion, that it was a total joke and Hitler told him personally that it was basically to scare the English and kill time before moving against Russia.

Meanwhile, Germany still WOULD have been at war against Russia, and their naval production could not match that of the UK at the best of times.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You don't conquer nations with medium bombers. Goering tried.

Again- the Germans lacked the capacity to launch an invasion across the Channel, and ALL the branches of the German military said so. They were trying to batter the UK into surrender, not invade.

I would also dispute that about the Zero, but another time.

I see what you mean, homes. Thats what I meant; pummeling them into submission.

Yes the Zero, which was made by Mistubishi Motors , was the fastest in the world. Most fuel-capable?, I'm not so certain, pero I wouldn't doubt it, ese.

Originally posted by finti
still got their asses kicked by R.A.F



This is true. The Germans had better planes, however the RAF were better pilots.

Let's make something clear here. Invasion was impossible- totally. The Germans lacked the capacity to cross the Channel.

If the UK wasn't going to just surrender, then the only way to beat the UK was by the Battle of the Atlantic. The UK was a fortress- starve it out.

As it happens, the UK/US won that battle fair and square. But in any alternative scenario, the Germans would not have even started it, once a peace was made, and if they had tried, the peace would have gone and we would be back to what happened anyway, nor would they have bothered trying. It wasn't a battle you could win by surprise; it took years.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
This is true. The Germans had better planes, however the RAF were better pilots.

??!

The Germans had been fighting in air wars since the Spanish Civil War. Their training programme was better, they were more experienced and they were fresh from victory, whereas the RAF was fresh from total defeat.

Whoever told you that fact got it totally wrong. The German pilots were VERY good indeed.

The RAF won because:

1. They started to learn quickly

2. Their organisation system was better for national defence, whereas the German one was designed for army support

3. We had home ground.

The planes on each side were more or less equal. Spitfires vs. 109s has to be the most even contest in history.

Allied(to be fair) since many of the occupied countries had a load of boats participating in the convoys to supply Britain ................and Russia for that matter

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Let's make something clear here. Invasion was impossible- totally. The Germans lacked the capacity to cross the Channel.



I agreed with that. However, if you guys were all alone, germany would have eventually had time to prepare for an invasion. But, as it is, it became a two front war and Germany over extended itself.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I see what you mean, homes. Thats what I meant; pummeling them into submission.

Yes the Zero, which was made by Mistubishi Motors , was the fastest in the world. Most fuel-capable?, I'm not so certain, pero I wouldn't doubt it, ese.

Fast, but made out of paper. You couldn't win an offensive air battle with them. The Japanese learned that eventually.

Originally posted by finti
Allied(to be fair) since many of the occupied countries had a load of boats participating in the convoys to supply Britain ................and Russia for that matter

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
(to Bardock)

First of all, yes, it was a tactical error to switch to strategic bombing, but what does that have to do with what we were talking about? You were talking about the fleet- it was out of range of the German bombers.

If the pre-requisite for attack of the UK was air superiority over the British coastline, the Germans HAD it for more than long enough. At one point nearly all the south coast airbases were out of action. They had whatever opportunity that might have afforded. They didn't do it. Why not? They couldn't. Adolf Galland himself describes in detail how there was never going to be any invasion, that it was a total joke and Hitler told him personally that it was basically to scare the English and kill time before moving against Russia.

Meanwhile, Germany still WOULD have been at war against Russia, and their naval production could not match that of the UK at the best of times.

Well I was under the impression it was the Fleet that was bombed, I might have mixed that up though.

The thing is I totally agree that it was impossible at that time, but if there wouldn't have been a war with Russia (which was Hitlers intention), a peace with England might have resulted in Germany building Ships to invade England, I don't think it would have been that way, but it is a possibility. Nazis are megalomaniacs afterall.

Are you sure about that? I think pre WWI Germany was able to keep up and even surpass Britains naval production, I hgave no statistics for WWII so I am not sure about it.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Oh, no I don't think we would have entered the war if not for Pearl Harbour. Roosevelt allowed Pearl Harbour to occur because he knew that a huge majority of Americans were still feeling the effects of WWI, and had since that time become rabid isolationists. It's one of the reasons that Wilsons attempts to get the US to join the League of Nations were so unsuccessful. Even all those years later, few Americans could see the benefits of our participation in WWI.

We WOULD have entered regardless, ese. Yes, FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to occur for undeniable entrance, and the blame fell heavily on Admiral Kimmel, who was incharge of the Hawaii sector.

If PH, had not happened, FDR's boys likely would have orchestrated something else.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think pre WWI Germany was able to keep up and even surpass Britains naval production,

Her naval ruled empire ruled, homes. Your unrestricted submarine warfare was an answer to that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well I was under the impression it was the Fleet that was bombed, I might have mixed that up though.

The thing is I totally agree that it was impossible at that time, but if there wouldn't have been a war with Russia (which was Hitlers intention), a peace with England might have resulted in Germany building Ships to invade England, I don't think it would have been that way, but it is a possibility. Nazis are megalomaniacs afterall.

Are you sure about that? I think pre WWI Germany was able to keep up and even surpass Britains naval production, I hgave no statistics for WWII so I am not sure about it.

Indeed not, it was the air bases being bombed.

And I do not think we are discussing any scenario here where Germany did not invade Russia, having esbtalished that this was an essential and integral part of any 'Germany at war' scenario.

But even so... no, I am afraid not; the UK fleet was always going to be superior to the German. 20 years of Versailles and available coal and oil apacity made it so.

Of course, oil was the second big reason for Germany to go for Russia.

Meanwhile, in WWI, the Germans had ONE fleet, which barely left its moorings. The UK had to maintain several fleets over the whole world, it was a different story. The Germans were trying to match the UK home fleet only.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
??!

The Germans had been fighting in air wars since the Spanish Civil War. Their training programme was better, they were more experienced and they were fresh from victory, whereas the RAF was fresh from total defeat.

Whoerver told you that fact got it totally wrong. The German pilots were VERY good indeed.

The RAF won because:

1. They started to learn quickly

2. Their organisaion system was better for national defence, whereas the German one was designed for army support

3. We had home ground.

The planes on each side were more or less equal. Spitfires vs. 109s has to be the most even contest in history.

I'm not saying the Luftwaffe wasn't some of the best in the world. But, as the war went on, the RAF were kicking ass. And the Germans had excellent planes, for the time. And, again, if Germany hadn't gotten into a two front war, then the planes would have gotten better and better. And, eventually, the Briish fighting the Germans on their own would have fallen if they continued to refuse peace.

I thought one of the reasons the US entered the war was because one of our Ocean Liners was hit. Full of tourists going to Europe.....Maybe I'm wrong..

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
We WOULD have entered regardless, ese. Yes, FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to occur for undeniable entrance, and the blame fell heavily on Admiral Kimmel, who was incharge of the Hawaii sector.

If PH, had not happened, FDR's boys likely would have orchestrated something else.

Do not call me ese again please.

And this is symantics. But, if not for some massive, Sept. 11th type event that was allowed to take place by the administration, the US would not have entered the war.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I thought one of the reasons the US entered the war was because one of our Ocean Liners was hit. Full of tourists going to Europe.....Maybe I'm wrong..

that was WW1

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Indeed not, it was the air bases being bombed.

And I do not think we are discussing any scenario here where Germany did not invade Russia, having esbtalished that this was an essential and integral part of any 'Germany at war' scenario.

But even so... no, I am afraid not; the UK fleet was always going to be superior to the German. 20 years of Versailles and available coal and oil apacity made it so.

Of course, oil was the second big reason for Germany to go for Russia.

Meanwhile, in WWI, the Germans had ONE fleet, which barely left its moorings. The UK had to maintain several fleets over the whole world, it was a different story. The Germans were trying to match the UK home fleet only.

Ok, I am a layman in that subject so I can't really argue about it.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I thought one of the reasons the US entered the war was because one of our Ocean Liners was hit. Full of tourists going to Europe.....Maybe I'm wrong..

That was the First World War, esa.

As ever with Germany, they had superb designs but no practicality. Their advanced tanks were the best in the world, but they couldn't make them. The same for their planes, jet power and everything- they were just toally impractical without the resources they needed. No, the Germans would never have won that way.

The only other possible argument you could make is that Germany gets the bomb. But I think we are straying too far out the scenario here.

Let's face it, this would have happened- Germany and Russia would have fought each other into the stone age.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
that was WW1 Ohhhh, you're right..Lusitania..got it mixed up.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Let's face it, this would have happened- Germany and Russia would have fought each other into the stone age.

How would you think that would have occured?

Originally posted by Bardock42
How would you think that would have occured?

Desperation and hatred. Just like when the Red Army invaded Berlin in April 1945, most of the German defenders were either teenaged or elderly.

Because we all know that the HUGE proportion of the fghting in WWII was between Germany and Russia. Take the UK out of the equation and the difference on the East is not that big. Ok, so you have problems with Russian supply, and Germany not needing to fight in Africa and and defend its cities from air attack, and much later in the war, no second front.

But these are peripheral issues. It seems very likely indeed that the final result would have been more or lress the same, but would have taken longer.

Germany had exhausted all its manpower by the end of the war. Russia, despite the staggering casulities, could have actually afforded to lose the same amount of people again. It defies belief but it is so.

So the only possible difference is that instead of a crushing defeat of Germany, we get along, protracted, horiffic war of years and years and years where both sides totally devastate the other beyond use.

Originally posted by Ushgarak


Let's face it, this would have happened- Germany and Russia would have fought each other into the stone age.

No argument here.

Anybody got another, SINGLE, "what if..." question? This thread has gone from what if to who knows more about history. And that might have come from too many possible scenarios being mentioned in the opening post.

Yeah...It was just a simple "What If"...........

Originally posted by Ushgarak
As ever with Germany, they had superb designs but no practicality. Their advanced tanks were the best in the world, but they couldn't make them. The same for their planes, jet power and everything- they were just toally impractical without the resources they needed. No, the Germans would never have won that way.

The only other possible argument you could make is that Germany gets the bomb. But I think we are straying too far out the scenario here.

Let's face it, this would have happened- Germany and Russia would have fought each other into the stone age.

I agree for the most part. However, as you say, it was a matter of investable time and resources. As a solution to the problem of making these designs come to fruition, the US and Britain simply brought these scientista and engineers to their countries and established government agencies like NASA and the CIA.

Hitler was stupid. Had he listened to his generals the outcome of the war, whether it ended in 1940 or not, would have been very different. Before the blitz of London in 1940 German air raids were concentrating on British air bases. Because a few British bombs fell on Berlin Hitler ordered bombing to be concentrated on London giving British air power valuable reprieve. Had he not done this Germany likely would have decimated what was left of the RAF forcing Britain to sue for peace. During the invasion of Russia the top commanders of the Wehrmacht wanted a single, massive drive on Moscow. Hitler instead ordered the military split into three army groups leaving the Russians to concentrate greater forces around Moscow keeping their command structure intact. The fact that the invasion was started three weeks late was also a major factor when winter set in. The final nail in Germany's coffin was when it declared war on The United States. Had Hitler not done this it may have been very difficult to get congress to declare war on Germany despite pearl harbor.

All speculation I know but most military historians agree.

We can be very thankful Hitler was a military idiot. One can just imagine what would have happened had Germany won the war. The Final Solution would likely have been carried out in it's entirety. A fascist Nazi Europe would likely be the dominant world power. One can only speculate at the horrible ramifications of that.

Unless I missed it, seems a small, minor detail ought to be mentioned, something that would've had Hitler frothing at the mouth with visions of world conquest dancing in his head...

Hitler + Atomic Bomb = ?

It was mentioned.

"Had he not done this Germany likely would have decimated what was left of the RAF forcing Britain to sue for peace."

Non sequitur.

Originally posted by Mindship
Unless I missed it, seems a small, minor detail ought to be mentioned, something that would've had Hitler frothing at the mouth with visions of world conquest dancing in his head...

Hitler + Atomic Bomb = ?


It was discovered after the war that Germany had pretty much abandoned nuclear weapons research. This is probably because by 1943 Germany's defeat was imminant and efforts were being put into other "miricle" weapons. The V weapons (missles) long range bombers capable of bombing New York, etc.

Had the war gone more favorably for Germany it is almost certain they would have developed nukes. The question is, could they have beaten the US to the punch?

Fortunately, we will never know.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It was mentioned.

"Had he not done this Germany likely would have decimated what was left of the RAF forcing Britain to sue for peace."

Non sequitur.

Oh really? The bulk of British military might in the late 30s early 40s was naval and in protecting supplies coming from America and controlling the Mediterranian it did make a difference but Britain did not have land forces to compare to Germany's and it's air force was smaller. In the early stages of the air war Germany was intent on destroying British air power, something it COULD have done if they stuck to the original plan. Britian may indeed not have sued for peace in such event but it would have been foolish. With the RAF crippled Germany could have bombed them with impunity, much as the opposite happened in the late stages of the war.

it also means that Britain would get the time to build a defense to meet an invasion, not that those isles didnt have the experience of the past being invaded from the sea, the time the nazis got is the time the brit got so..................and the brits didnt have to have fought off the ever destructive encounter of the different resistance around European occupied countries.........

Because they was sabotaged all the time, they had the right idea but to get the ingredient to do so was a target the resistance groups f*ucked up all the time
come back to the word if...............................IF, just as IF the norwegien defences hadnt come down to a stand down on the eve of april 8 1940(due to political desicions) we Norway) might have prevented or at least delayed the invasion of Norway further than the two months it took(the longest resistance of the occupied countries, due to the fact that Norway was a nuteral and didnt have a regular army god nows why*socialist bastards that ran our country ways then*...) of em all

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
It was discovered after the war that Germany had pretty much abandoned nuclear weapons research. This is probably because by 1943 Germany's defeat was imminant and efforts were being put into other "miricle" weapons. The V weapons (missles) long range bombers capable of bombing New York, etc.

Had the war gone more favorably for Germany it is almost certain they would have developed nukes. The question is, could they have beaten the US to the punch?

Fortunately, we will never know.

Not only that, most of Germany's best and brightest scientists were Jews who fled to the US. Including Einstein.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Oh really? The bulk of British military might in the late 30s early 40s was naval and in protecting supplies coming from America and controlling the Mediterranian it did make a difference but Britain did not have land forces to compare to Germany's and it's air force was smaller. In the early stages of the air war Germany was intent on destroying British air power, something it COULD have done if they stuck to the original plan. Britian may indeed not have sued for peace in such event but it would have been foolish. With the RAF crippled Germany could have bombed them with impunity, much as the opposite happened in the late stages of the war.

Yes, really.

Everything you just mentioned was irrelevant. Germany could not cross thr Channel, and they could never have done enough damage with medium bombers.

So what happened there with air power made no difference, even if your premise is true, which is a subject for debate.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yes, really.

Everything you just mentioned was irrelevant. Germany could not cross thr Channel, and they could never have done enough damage with medium bombers.

So what happened there with air power made no difference, even if your premise is true, which is a subject for debate.


I'll agree with you about the crossing the channel part but they most certainly could have done massive damage if they had kept at RAF air bases and crippled Britains air power.

Just look at what British and American air power did to Germany 1943-45. Don't say they couldn't have destroyed much of the UK had the RAF been knocked out in 1940.

And it's ALL subject for debate. Fortunately we will never know for sure.