What if.....

[ik911]

What if Hitler was still in power (thus hadn't attacked Russia)?
Would it be a terrible place, Europe? How would it be?

I'm not pro-Hitler or Nazi (certainly definitely not) but I just want to see where this crazy question leads us...

If were tired of debating this, we can always resort to either a new 'what if.....'-question or cannibalism.

[Xandax]

I think that is an impossible question to answer or even discuss.
Hitler was a poor strategist, but his personality drove him onwards still as he overheard the warnings of his military staff and did as he wanted anyway.
Thus - even assuming that Hilter didnt' attack Russia back in 1941 (or was it 42...hmmm) then I have no doubt that he would have continued to be in war and eventually attacked Russia.
For the simple reason of ressources.
Even if Britain had made peace with Hitler after the conqest of France and the US would have stayed out - Hitler would still have gone after Russia and thus bringing both Britain and the US into the war, because they would recognize that no lasting peace would be possible with this person.
Thus - I think the fate of the 3rd Reich would have been the same - regardless if Hitler had attacked Russian in Barbarossa, because it was an inevitable attack with Hitler in charge.

Now - a more interesting "what if" would (IMO) have been, what if Hitler had gone for Moscow with full force, instead of dividing his attention and Army Groups and pressing on towards the Caucasus as well.....
now that poses some interesting military strategic questions

[Magrus]

Hmm, I don't think Hitler would of survived all this time based on who he was and what his goals were, regardless of how events that happened would of turned out. Should he have won WW2, I'm assuming he would of been assassinated, by any number of assorted parties, including his own people once he ran out of those among his original targets to attack and focus on. Such a leader rules through mutual hate and fear, and once those two are extinguished, other targets must be assumed or your power dissolves.

Look at the U.S. economy for example, we have an economic boom everytime there is a war or enemy in sights, and it slides down once peace has lasted for some time. Thats just the economy.

A leader who has no sense of true strategy and intelligence gathering, leading a nation based on hate crimes would not have survived 60 years in office. Plain and simple.

Cannibalism however, now thats a topic. THAT would solve a population problem right quick. Not that it would be at all pleasant or conducive to a friendly environment with those around you...the thought just throws law and order out the window.

[giles337]

ik911: If you are interested in this topic there is a novel which is set in a world where the Axis powers were victorious in WWII. I cannot remember the title offhand, but will find out for you, and let you know, unless someone else posts it here first. It was an interestig read, though slightly fantastical at times, I would thoroughly reccomend it though.

[ik911]

@Xandax: When attacking Russia you HAVE to go for Caucasus. Lavish oil-reserves. With that oil he could fuel his tanks and eventually capture Moscow.
So strategically he should have focussed on that part, not Moscow.

USA would have grabbed every excuse for war on Nazi-Germani. It was a passengerboat, but could have been anything. They just didn't like another World-Power... That they 'liberated' Europe in the process was just a side-effect. 'United we stand, devided we fall.' Now, wasn't Europe 'United' under Germany? USA devided us...... (discussion material?)

@giles337: That would be interesting, though I'm not really into books.. I could make an exception.

[Moonbiter]

The book is called "Fatherland" by Robert Harris, and is highly recommended reading, both as fiction and as a very well researched "what if" theory.

[ik911]

I'll have a look in the library. Thanks.

[ik911]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ik911 USA would have grabbed every excuse for war on Nazi-Germani. It was a passengerboat, but could have been anything. They just didn't like another World-Power... That they 'liberated' Europe in the process was just a side-effect. 'United we stand, devided we fall.' Now, wasn't Europe 'United' under Germany? USA devided us...... (discussion material?)

Noone? No Pro-Americans???

[Magrus]

I'm American, but far, far from patriotic. IMHO, far more than half of the "major" wars I've been taught of through history in American schools were based on greed, including your "holy wars". WW2, and the following Cold War were no different in my opinion, although there were other elements involved. Hitler wanted power and had no qualms about butchering others and manipulating a country to do his bidding in order to do so. ANY person in power acting as he did will be pulled down eventually, whether by a lone assassin or a war. All in all, should he have survived the war, he wouldn't have survived to this day in power with his methods of ruling a people.

American politicians do not like other countries with power, why? Most Americans like the status quo, and anything threatening that threatens the politicians jobs. 9-11 showed that. A threat to our nations people from the outside showed the reaction by our government, I view it as much the same in some ways as that of the warlords of old and reminiscant of the same rulers Americans have fought to pull down for blanketing the populace in ignorance and lies in order to lead them around to achieve their own agendas.

I'd have to throw Bush, and other politicians of this period, regardless of station in this country, right up there with Andrew Jackson, Stalin, Hitler, Moussilini, and anyone else willing to slaughter thousands or millions of innocents in order for profit or power. Singling Hitler as a horrible person, I think is a bad idea. It's my view the only use of studying history is to understand the past, in order to grow and learn of what not to do. People with power over others continue to make the same mistakes. Those infamous rulers like Hitler were just either highly successful at it or did so in a more open manner. Hitler wasn't afraid to do what he thought was neccessary and happened to capture the trust and admiration of enough of his people to accomplish his goals for a time. Is Bush any different, or those else in my govenrment under him for allowing the things that go on under the American Flag elsewhere in the world? Most of the wars my countries been involved in for quite some time have been situations where the natives have for a good majority wanted nothing to do with us. Help was forced on them in order to promote the U.S. business, attempting to set up a puppet government elsewhere or to seize natural resources for ourselves. Perhaps it doesn't look the same on the cover as other tyrranical rulers and governments to most, but to me it does.

So long as it is in human nature to allow for such power to corrupt those who hold it, and also to prefer ignorance in more numbers than to seek out the truth, these types of figures will continue to pop up in different manners. They follow a different course and hide whats going on in order to prevent being pulled down, but such things are still being done today. THAT I say is something more worthwhile to think on than just Hitler.

[ik911]

Standing ovation Olé!

[Ekental]

bah you non-conformists are all alike

[Magrus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekental bah you non-conformists are all alike

Hmm, I do what I do, and think what I think, for my own reasons and if it so happens to agree with what someone else happens to think or do, so be it. "Non-conformist" isn't something I'd see myself as, I simply act however it is I see is best. That term's always brought to my mind someone who happens to go against something simply so they don't fit in with the majority.

[Locke Da'averan]

IIRC (and prolly not) US didn't want to go to europe and start a war against germany, they provided non-militaristic aid to britain, but that's it.. in the end, after the nazi-sub sanked the passenger boat they had to get involved.. Although i do believe it really was like ik said that US needed an excuse to join the war, thus interpreting their actions as generous aid/patriotism towards fallen countrymen instead of meddling..

If Hitler hadn't been so obsessed about capturing stalingrad(yes it was important but not absolutely necessary.. and not so coc ky towards the russian army and thought that they can conquer moscow before winter he might have prevailed on that side of the war.. but after the US joined(and i too believe they would've joined eventually even without the incident) they couldn't stand a chance..

I mean although he most likely had the best troops there was, you can't get along with a simple plan like, okay let's take over the europe etc.. I remember seeing some document where american WWII veterans and others were interviewed and IIRC 95% of the american soldiers didn't aim when they shot with their guns.. kinda makes you wonder if what happened crazy or not.

[Brynn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ik911 What if Hitler was still in power (thus hadn't attacked Russia)? Would it be a terrible place, Europe? How would it be? I'm not pro-Hitler or Nazi (certainly definitely not) but I just want to see where this crazy question leads us... If were tired of debating this, we can always resort to either a new 'what if.....'-question or cannibalism.

My history teacher in high school used to start every semester with telling us that "There are no 'what if'-s in history"

[Sytze]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magrus American politicians do not like other countries with power, why? Most Americans like the status quo, and anything threatening that threatens the politicians jobs. 9-11 showed that. A threat to our nations people from the outside showed the reaction by our government, I view it as much the same in some ways as that of the warlords of old and reminiscant of the same rulers Americans have fought to pull down for blanketing the populace in ignorance and lies in order to lead them around to achieve their own agendas.

I think you’re partly wrong, because this is more of a recent development.

You have to realise, that while fascism grew in Germany and Italy, pacifism swept over Western-Europe and the US after WW I. This was most clear in France, but also in a lesser degree in Great Britain and the US. Examples were students at Oxford who adopted a resolution saying that they would never take up arms for their country under any condition. Peace movements appeared among American students. Also, the loss and bloodshed of WW I was still imprinted in people’s minds and it was known that another World War would be even more terrible.

So in the 1930’s, the US followed a policy of isolation, despite president Roosvelt’s denunciation of both Germany and Italy. The Congres in 1935 to 1937 even forbade loans, export of munitions and use of American shipping facilities to aid any country that was in war. Many believed that the US were drawn into WW I because of the economic involvement. The US followed a policy of isolation (which also shows in the US decision to not be part of the League of Nations), despite the apparent thread of fascism and even Germany’s invasion in Poland.

When in 1940 Churchill asked the US for aid, not so much in troops, but more in equipment and material, the US responded. That was more Roosevlet’s doing, though, because American government was divided concerning Europe and sending help there. One group, called the isolationist, opposed to the involvement in the European war, believing that Europe was doomed, or that the US couldn’t help them anyway, or that Hitler proved no danger to the US. Another group, called the interventionists, wanted to help the Allies, and especially GB, immediately. According to them, Hitler was a thread, fascism should be destroyed and Latin America could be in danger if Hitler conquered Europe. Since Roosevelt belonged to the second group and convinced the government that the Allies should be helped, the US got involved. However, it was not until the attack at Pearl Harbor that the US actually sends troops.

So as you can see, after WW I America followed a policy of isolation. I think the US would not even be much involved in WW II if Roosvelt didn’t belong to the interventionists group and Japan didn’t attacked Pearl Harbor.