If the War stopped in 1940

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.

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.

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

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.

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,

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.