What if we had stood united with Hitler against Russia......

[Sixpack]

I like 'what if' discussions even if they are painfully confronting.

But it puts things in perspective, and the lads (and lady) here are man enough to take the abuse... :lol:

So here's a first 'What if' for ya:

What kind of Europe would have developed ?

-A fascist Europe, yes.

-Hitler as ruler surpreme: For a while: Yes. However we all know what happened to GJ Caesar. Nobody is immortal and it can be over with a flash of a knife.

-Communism outrooted; no cold war (No Korea, Vietnam, East Block etc.)

-Russia prosperous like the rest of Europe; and a real part of the European empire. A vast European common market !

-Relationships with ME and East: For sure better than they are now

-No Israel where it is today (real sorry for the Jews)

-and ????


Feck, no wonder the Americans were keen on liberating us ! :arrgh!:

:rock:

[Sixpack]

PS. Before remarks are dragged out of proportion:

I think in this 'what if' scenario there would not have been a Holocaust and prosecution of Jews had the fight swiftly and Euro-collectively been aimed at wiping out the communist threat and conquering all of Russia...

I assume Jews could have struck an early deal which would have left them in an isolated peace (somewhere) as part of the European Empire.

[Skybird]

Two centres of gravity, where only can be one. Assuming that the Nazis would have come to power in the same way and America making deal with them in the mid-30s, the reality on American ground (society, political tendency towards isolationism) would not have been of the hard-steeled nature that would have been needed to stop the Nazis from hollowing it out from within, means: taking over the power all by themselves by economical dependencies and treaties and secret action. Nazism was more aggressive than Americanism of that time. Once the ideological breeding program would have had 10-15 years of time to infiltrate the head's of America's young, it's fall to Nazism would have been pretty much a secured course of history, I think. The american mentality with it's high respect for it's own interpretation of a "Führergestalt" - the president - makes it vulnerable for such personal cults like has been established by the Nazis.

Hitler's death wouldn't have changed things much, I think. A short and brutal fight for power, some assassination and arrests and executions, and then another one of the leading elite would have taken his seat. Bohrmann, maybe Goebbels, and for sure: Goehring - these three come to my mind as the most likely candidates.

Horrible vision.

[Sixpack]

A lot more can be said on this piece of alternative history, Skybird. You surely can do better (dig deeper) than that. Though it must be embarassing for Germans in general to think this through freely, as I understand, which only shows again you have the cajones of a new breed of free spirited Germans :up: ;)

Interesting addition regarding America's part tho', as I was at first only thinking America would have remained a harmless isolated 'island' between 2 oceans, at least while the imperial European interest would have focussed on consolidating EURASIA and stubborn Britain.

I also think that after a relatively short brutal reign of Hitler and/or one or two of his henchmen to secure absolute power things might have developed for the better all over Europe and a centrally controlled
self government of regions (by puppets) would have developed throughout the empire in a natural way. Sort of like when Augustus ruled the empire after Caesar.

So no democracy like we know it, but acceptable if and when the system would protect the elite and common people and insure them prosperity and good trade. In other words, when the majority of people would have felt okay with their micro situation a lasting not so brutal yet powerful European imperial (federal ?)system might have emerged.

[to be continued after the break]

[August]

I don't believe the reign of Hitler would have been short at all and whoever did replace him would have been no better and perhaps even worse. I also don't believe the nazi

The Nazis with their ideal of Aryan racial superiority would have made living in the occupied countries a hell without end as they solidified their hold over Europe and Western Asia and the Jews would still have been massacred.

[Sixpack]

The Nazis with their ideal of Aryan racial superiority would have made living in the occupied countries a hell without end as they solidified their hold over Europe and Western Asia and the Jews would still have been massacred.

Yes, this bit puzzles me in this 'what if' scenario.

It's likely that would happen but for some reason I am not so sure.

Hitler started his journey into madness out of sheer personal frustration. Remember the dude wanted to enter art school and felt miserable about the WW1 defeat.

Had he felt he was a succesful human being and Germany a leading proud country, his mental state and views might have changed for the better or at least made him seek different arrangements for the Jews, like move them to a remote inhospitable part of Europe or otherwise out of core-Germany possibly under strict rules. Not nice by any means, but beats a holocaust any day.

So yes, the fate of the Jews is the weakest part of the chain in this alternative history. It's thin line between hero (*) or zero.

Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon are generally admired for their achievements.

[August]

The Nazis with their ideal of Aryan racial superiority would have made living in the occupied countries a hell without end as they solidified their hold over Europe and Western Asia and the Jews would still have been massacred.

Yes, this bit puzzles me in this 'what if' scenario.

It's likely that would happen but for some reason I am not so sure.

Hitler started his journey into madness out of sheer personal frustration. Remember the dude wanted to enter art school and felt miserable about the WW1 defeat.

Had he felt he was a succesful human being and Germany a leading proud country, his mental state and views might have changed for the better or at least made him seek different arrangements for the Jews, like move them to a remote inhospitable part of Europe or otherwise out of core-Germany possibly under strict rules. Not nice by any means, but beats a holocaust any day.

So yes, the fate of the Jews is the weakest part of the chain in this alternative history. It's thin line between hero (*) or zero.

Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon are generally admired for their achievements.

I disagree about Hitler. He had plenty to be proud of. His party brought the German nation back from the depths of a depression that was far worse than anything experienced in the US or anywhere else for that matter. He gave the German people back their pride lost after WW1 which was the key to the nazis success.

He could have stopped there without dragging the world into war and he would have accomplished far more than most national leaders in history ever did, but he didn't.

As for the Jews, i have never subscribed to the idea the holocaust happened because the war made it impossible to just send them away. Take the Ukranians for example. They were constantly murdered in wholesale lots in spite of the fact they would have been willing allies against the Soviets.

Like the Jews they were in the way and I believe it shows they and all other "sub race" of people would still have been eliminated. If anything I firmly believe the Nazis would have been far worse (if you can imagine that) without the war to inhibit their actions.

[Sixpack]

Point of this alternative scenario is, or so I guess:

[after contemplating once again what has lead the world to the status quo]

FACT: Europe as a whole was the big loser of WW2 and laid in ruins

FACT: America became the superpower because of Europe's misery (which Europe had only itself to blame for)

FACT: Europe has ever since been and is still stuck between:

-Soviet Union ; collapsed into unstable underdeveloped parts, with a couple of exceptions
-ME (time bomb)
-Emperor America

Europe is struggling ambiguously to survive in this world and even flourish in the middle. It will be hard to achieve as wonderful Europe drops more and more behind.

It's destiny might as well have been a totally different one: A 1000 years empire :yep:

[tycho102]

I'll play this game!





What if we had let Patton, who knew that the Communist Russia would be the next world-dominating enemy, conquer the Russians like he wanted to?

What if we had dropped nukes on St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kiev, and Grazny?

What if Lawrence of Arabia had been assigned to some frozen wasteland, and Britian allowed the Ottoman Empire to continue exterminating the "Palestinians"?

What if a bacteria was found that could convert oil into carbon-nanotubes, and a terrorist put some into the seawater that is pumped into Arabian oil fields, effectively "destroying" all the oil contained in that reservoir?

What if my local liquor store actually increased their supply of Carlsberg, or raised the price, so there was actually some beer there when I'm shopping?

[Sixpack]

Tycho, you got the hang of it better than I do. Rock on :up:

[Skybird]

I disagree about Hitler. He had plenty to be proud of. His party brought the German nation back from the depths of a depression that was far worse than anything experienced in the US or anywhere else for that matter. He gave the German people back their pride lost after WW1 which was the key to the nazis success.

The price was too high for just giving Germans back their pride. Doing so was not so much the goal he wanted to accomplish, but a tool for reaching far beyond Germany, and cleaning non-Aryan people off the face of the earth. "Mein Kampf", as far as I am aware of it and was told about it, made that clear since very early. Where others would have sought to reestablish Germany's status amongst the other powers, and then eventually would have fallen victim to megalomania, Hitler already had fallen to that idea when he talked of overcoming of Versailles and giving Germans back their pride. It was only a tool to do so, not the final goal.

Another interesting "waht if"-scenario. What kind of Germany would we see today, if the Nazis did not came to power, Germany did not brake the treaty of Versailles and would have choosen to stuck in the economical misery it was in. Civil war? Another bad guy showing up? War nevertheless? Annexation by france, or a Western alliance? Russian intervention? Maybe there are evn more alterntaives how history would have developed than in the case of the Scenario sixpack originally described in this thread.

Let's talk about quantum physics, Kopenhagen and Schroedinger's cat, and alternate universes :lol: Who knows, maybe, despite all horror in our world, we nevertheless do live in one of the better realities there are, or will be, or has been....

[Happy Times]

I also think this scenario should have happened after the fall of Germany, arm them again and take on the Soviets. Patton had the foresight and knew this but too many pussys in the US goverment. It wouldnt have been impossible to get the Euros to attack Russia with the right propaganda.

[August]

I also think this scenario should have happened after the fall of Germany, arm them again and take on the Soviets. Patton had the foresight and knew this but too many pussys in the US goverment. It wouldnt have been impossible to get the Euros to attack Russia with the right propaganda.

I seriously doubt the western Allies could have beaten the Soviets militarily in 1945-46, especially with the war in the Pacific still going strong.

We did have the atom bomb but not very many of them and it would have taken a lot to wipe out the huge Soviet army that was already in Germany and eastern europe. I think long before we could have built and deployed them in sufficient numbers to do so, the Soviets would have been so closely engaged with our troops their use would have hurt us as much as them.

[Happy Times]

I dont know, i think that astrategic bombing campaign in USSR with the force allready at disposal and maybe a few a-bobms would have breaken the soviets back. Promising independence to Eastern Europe and Ukraine would have caused a massive resistance movement. After Japan fell it would have been a two front war for USSR.

[Happy Times]

And just because the Cold War was cold and not as "Hollywood" story as the WW II, it should be more celebrated as the real liberation of Europe of totalitarism.

[August]

And just because the Cold War was cold and not as "Hollywood" story as the WW II, it should be more celebrated as the real liberation of Europe of totalitarism.

The cold war was about much more than just Europe, but yeah i agree.

[Iceman]

What if we had stood united with Hitler against Russia......?

We would be burning in hell right along side of him now.

any more questions?

P.S. When you say "We" in what if we stood united...you mean Europe or who exactly?

[STEED]

What if we had stood united with Hitler against Russia......?

We would be burning in hell right along side of him now.

any more questions?

P.S. When you say "We" in what if we stood united...you mean Europe or who exactly?

No nicely said.

[TLAM Strike]

I also think this scenario should have happened after the fall of Germany, arm them again and take on the Soviets. Patton had the foresight and knew this but too many pussys in the US goverment. It wouldnt have been impossible to get the Euros to attack Russia with the right propaganda.

I seriously doubt the western Allies could have beaten the Soviets militarily in 1945-46, especially with the war in the Pacific still going strong.

We did have the atom bomb but not very many of them and it would have taken a lot to wipe out the huge Soviet army that was already in Germany and eastern europe. I think long before we could have built and deployed them in sufficient numbers to do so, the Soviets would have been so closely engaged with our troops their use would have hurt us as much as them.

You are forgetting the west had basically naval supremacy over the Atlantic after VE day. The Soviet Navy we know today didn't exist. Imagine an amphibious assault from the White Sea and Baltic followed by an invasion of Kamchatka. All of a sudden those massive forces in Germany have to worry about losing their Capital. Who would win in a race? Patton from Leningrad or Arkhangel’sk to Moscow or who ever the Soviets had in Berlin to Moscow? My money is on Patton. :rock:

[August]

You are forgetting the west had basically naval supremacy over the Atlantic after VE day. The Soviet Navy we know today didn't exist. Imagine an amphibious assault from the White Sea and Baltic followed by an invasion of Kamchatka. All of a sudden those massive forces in Germany have to worry about losing their Capital. Who would win in a race? Patton from Leningrad or Arkhangel’sk to Moscow or who ever the Soviets had in Berlin to Moscow? My money is on Patton. :rock:

Patton would have been tied up in Western Europe defending it from said army which would immediately have gone on the attack at the commencement of hostilities and which, BTW, was in more than just Berlin but rather extended on a solid in depth front from all the way down to the Baltic on up to the Norweigan border. That's not something you're going to just bypass....

But more importantly, that's not all the forces the Soviets had at their disposal either. Remember, they were able to mount a pretty massive invasion of their own over 3000 miles away against the Japanese in Mongolia just a couple months later and I don't think they stripped their western front to do it.

Now i'm not saying the Allies, especially reinforced by the remnants of the German army, couldn't have kept control of western Europe and maybe even eventually ejected the Soviets from eastern Europe, but take Moscow? You're talking about one very, very hard fight in a war where we'd be the aggressors, not them.

[Sixpack]

What if we had stood united with Hitler against Russia......?

We would be burning in hell right along side of him now.

any more questions?

P.S. When you say "We" in what if we stood united...you mean Europe or who exactly?

We is Europe very early 1940, meaning the time when Germany were about to Blitzkrieg all over continental Europe and Europe could have still freely decided to accept the Fuehrer as their supreme leader to take on the Soviet Union. For sure at that point in time conquest of the SU would have been certain.

Are Alexander the Great, Caesar and Napoleon burning in hell ? Maybe they are, but that doesnt stop Hollywood making heroic movies about them and people admiring them.

What sets Hitler apart from the other conquerors ? Yes indeed, the Holocaust.

But weird enough evil totalitarian dictatorship didn't stop the West from bonding with Stalin as allies in WW2.

[TLAM Strike]

You’re forgetting the massive amount of airpower the West had at its disposal. Look at parts of Normandy days after the landing. Every road the Germans tried to use they got attacked by P-47s. If the US ramped up production of the F-80 Shooting Star the Red Airforce would have been in serious trouble (the F-80, F-8F Bearcat and FR-1 Fireball would have been at a fairly big advantage against the La-7 ‘Fin’) and we could have done to the Soviet Union just what we did to Germany.

[Sixpack]

:hmm:

May I remind you that early 1940 USA was nowhere and its military grossly insufficient to match Germany's.

Germany and the rest of the world in 40 was a far different story compared to 44 around D-Day.

But I think I must have missed the AMEURASIA alternative history now being discussed here, if so I beg your pardon :lol: .

[Sixpack]

Maybe I should have said late 38/early 39....

Read:

http://www.thirdreich.net/AH_Man_of_Year.html

Quote:
But the figure of Adolf Hitler strode over a cringing Europe with all the swagger of a conqueror. Not the mere fact that the Fuhrer brought 10,500,000 more people (7,000,000 Austrians, 3,500,000 Sudetens) under his absolute rule made him the Man of 1938. Japan during the same time added tens of millions of Chinese to her empire. More significant was the fact Hitler became in 1938 the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today.

His shadow fell far beyond Germany's frontier. Small, neighboring States (Denmark, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, The Balkans, Luxembourg, The Netherlands) feared to offend him. In France Nazi pressure was in part responsible for some of the post-Munich anti-democratic decrees. Fascism had intervened openly in Spain, had fostered a revolt in Brazil, was covertly aiding revolutionary movements in Rumania, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania. In Finland a foreign minister had to resign under Nazi pressure. Throughout eastern Europe after Munich the trend was toward less freedom, more dictatorship. In the U.S. alone did democracy feel itself strong enough at year's end to give Hitler his come-uppance.

The Fascintern, with Hitler in the driver's seat, with Mussolini, Franco and the Japanese military cabal riding behind, emerged in 1938 as an international, revolutionary movement. Rant as he might against the machinations of international Communism and international Jewry, or rave as he would that he was just a Pan-German trying to get all the Germans back in one nation, Fuhrer Hitler had himself become the world's No. 1 International Revolutionist--so much so that if the oft-predicted struggle between Fascism and Communism now takes place it will be only because two revolutionist dictators, Hitler and Stalin, are too big to let each other live in the same world.

[kiwi_2005]

Hitler would of by then have the atomic bomb - and would of used it more often than what the US did. In fact i think it would of been the end of the world for us all. :arrgh!:

Theres been claims that Hitler was bent on destroying the german people as well. :hmm:

[STEED]

Hitler would of by then have the atomic bomb -

What after kicking out all those scientists due to racial issues, the result of this was Germany gave the bomb away to the Allies just as well for us. German scientists left in the country had calculated that the critical mass was something like 50 tons for Uranium. Result by their own calculations could not make the bomb in one year, because nobody could get that material within a thousand years with the available methods. Meaning they got their sums wrong.

[Iceman]

But weird enough evil totalitarian dictatorship didn't stop the West from bonding with Stalin as allies in WW2.

Lesser of two weevils?

[TLAM Strike]

But weird enough evil totalitarian dictatorship didn't stop the West from bonding with Stalin as allies in WW2.

Lesser of two weevils?

He who would pun would pick a pocket. :P

[CCIP]

Nothing weird of that, actually. The Soviet Union had rather limited ambitions when it came to French and British interests. Hitler, on the other hand... It wasn't Russia who invaded France twice during the previous century :hmm:

Stalin also espoused the doctrine of "Communism in one country", and even though he supported global revolution, he never stated that the USSR planned for a global war with the goal of global supremacy. Or racial superiority. Hitler, on the other hand... It wasn't Stalin who wrote Mein Kampf. And to this day there exists no concrete evidence for Soviet plans of global conquest, before or after WWII.

I find this claim

-Russia prosperous like the rest of Europe; and a real part of the European empire. A vast European common market !

deeply offensive, I'm sorry :-?

Tell this to my grandfather, whose brother - a pure-blooded Novgorod Russian, was taken away to a labour camp and never returned, and whose best friend was killed by the Germans during the occupation - for no other reason that they were Russian. And that was in 1941 when the war seemed to be nearly won from the German perspective. The atrocities committed by Germans in Russia are so well-documented, and so repulsive, that I don't think there needs to be any other option.

There would be no Russia as a nation. The holocaust would have been a few dozen million more deadly. There is proof beyond all doubt that Hitler would have destroyed Russians and other slavs with reckless abandon (there were charts, for crying out loud, stating exactly how many of these people were to be killed and how many sent for slave labour!).

To me, this is a signal of deeply-ingrained Russophobia that still exists in the West. Apparently, German domination of Europe and slaughter of millions of Slavic peoples is still considered a viable option by some - as long as it got rid of the USSR. Which, by the way, had done precious little harm to the West all through the cold war. It's the others who paid the price. And, apparently, some have gotten a little too comfortable with the idea of others paying the price.

:(

[Sixpack]

S! CCIP, you're late....

Yes indeed, I had the nerve to explore the boundaries of this forum with this thread and I am not too proud to say that I am sorry if I deeply offended you in the process. But like I have stated, 'what if' history scenarios can be painful when one has grown accustomed to classic Hollywood stories and endings (and fond of Maddox'IL-2?). I am sure the Avon Lady wasnt thrilled either.

We have the luxury in this day and age to play UBoot sims and play politically incorrect what if wars on our PCs enjoying the heck out of 'em. So really please, let's not be too oversensitive now....

Dutch people have never been known for Russiaphobia and that sure as sin includes me.

Never have I (not as a kid in the 70ies and 80ies nor in hindsight) believed the Soviet were to invade W-Europe or drop a big one on us. Yet they were occupying Eastern Europe with iron hand.

My what if scenario indeed dismissed nationalistic Soviet and Jewish interests as inferior to the imperial Eurasian cause...

[Sixpack]

But weird enough evil totalitarian dictatorship didn't stop the West from bonding with Stalin as allies in WW2.

Lesser of two weevils?

What is a weevil ? :know:

[TteFAboB]

To me, this is a signal of deeply-ingrained Russophobia that still exists in the West. Apparently, German domination of Europe and slaughter of millions of Slavic peoples is still considered a viable option by some - as long as it got rid of the USSR. Which, by the way, had done precious little harm to the West all through the cold war. It's the others who paid the price. And, apparently, some have gotten a little too comfortable with the idea of others paying the price.

:(

That's hardly true. The Soviet legacy lives to this day all over the "West" as residual effect. You ignore the deaths, tortures and convulsion caused by revolutionary groups financed by the gold of Moscow, supported by smuggled Soviet weapons and/or directly assisted by Soviet staff. Under the personal guidance of Soviet agents, many died across South and Central America, under Soviet care Fidel Castro murdered thousands for "delict of opinion". You are right, others have paid the price, and still pay today, so you can believe in the victimization of the USSR. Just to let you know, your grandfather & friends weren't the only ones to die.

But the confidence in the lack of evidence against hypothetical USSR plans is dubious, considering the files were first open only a few years ago, and there's still material in the dark we'll never see anytime soon. The opening of the mountain of documents of the USSR have brought us many unforeseen conclusions and I wouldn't be so sure that there isn't anything new waiting to be found.

The CIA came to know (by Soviet dissidents) and informed Salvador Allende was in the KGB's payroll, nobody believed it during the Cold War, now it's confirmed by the KGB. Isabelita, Perón's third wife, is there too. And so is Perón's Economy Minister, José Gelbard. Who would've thought back in the day this fascist government, often opposed by communists, was aligned with the Soviet Union? It certainly explains why, when it fell in 1976, the USSR didn't condemned the dictatorship of General Videla right away, it actually vetoed the American proposal in the UN to condemn the violantion of human rights in Argentina. In 1980 it was time to pay back the favours, and so 80% of Argentinian grain exports were sent to the USSR.

Speaking of the UN, Lenin's global projects weren't so harmless to the "West". Between 1956 and 1964 Kruchev passed in the Central Committee about 6,000 projects for the Third World. Brejnev knew that was the way to go. And so the UN was conquered in 1960 by Third World nations aligned with the USSR, African dictatorships were disputing about Human Rights face to face with Great Britain. And the "Non-Aligned Movement" aligned itself with the anti-imperialist flag, condemning the American intervention in Vietnam, but not the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia. Andropov, when head of the KGB, bragged about how he managed to organize anti-American manifestations in India for only US$ 5,000. So the USSR convinced the "West" that Vietnam was a mistake, and allowed for the Cuban intervention in Angola, and the Soviet intervention in Ethiopia, where many people's grandfathers were murdered. Is there not enough evidence of the USSR actions against the interests of the "West"?

Apparently, Russian domination of Eastern Europe and slaughter of millions of Slavic peoples is still considered a viable option by some - as long as it consolidated the [peacefull] USSR.

"Ignore more and worse the bad than the ignorant." - Quevedo, Spanish poet.

[Happy Times]

And to claim that USSR really didnt want to dominate atleast entire Europe, is closing your eyes from the truth.

[Sixpack]

And to claim that USSR really didnt want to dominate atleast entire Europe, is closing your eyes from the truth.

Really ?

Oh, ignorance bliss then, I guess :)

[TankHunter]

Europe would be dominated by Germany and it’s allies for sure. Russia would be a collection of states east of the Urals. West of the Urals would be German farmland and mass graves full of dead Russians. Civilians and others. The principle cities in Russia would no longer exist, or would be populated by Germans and would have a serious name change.

There would be a cold war between Germany and the allies at best, or a hot war soon after Russia was dealt with. It all depends on how many Germans of military age survived the war with Russia. Also it depends on how many Russians are alive, and strong enough to cause problems for the Germans. Italy would likely have a few extra regions in the Mediterranean.

The holocaust would be much worse than what it was, primarily because the Nazis would actually have the time to complete it, and also because the Slavs would be included in it fully soon after the Jews.

After Hitler’s death, two options would be available. Either Germany has civil strife which would be short of civil war, when trying to find a new leader. Or a civil war would erupt between the major figures in Germany.

A war with the allies, which is possible, would result in a stalemate, for Germany would have the industrial strength, and the resources to combat the allies. The only lacking item would be manpower. The will of the allies would likely break sooner than the will of the Germans primarily because the Germans would be under a dictatorship and the allies’ civilians for the most part would be able to dissent in a long war. France would likely be annexed.

After Hitler’s death, the expansion would likely stop, and either Germany will become a decentralized state trying to deal with all of these ethnic and cultural minorities, or it would fall apart in the next few hundred years, sort of like the Tirimude (sp) or Mughal Empires.

[CCIP]

I like Tank Hunter's summary, I would generally agree with it. What I would suggest is that generally speaking, the world would be worse off if Hitler had his way. Hitler was willing to act within and beyond his means; at the same time, if nothing else, one should give the USSR credit for never even attempting a war with the West.

Happy Times - if you were referring to my post... like hell I would defend Stalin and his successors! :shifty:

I think it's obvious to everyone that Soviet domination of Europe and their offensive actions against others weren't exactly a gift to all. I think it's obvious that many people suffered, lost their homes, lost their freedom or died because of the regime. But again, it has always been the far lesser of two evils. Perhaps not for Finland, but Russians to the east are human too.

***

This is not a discussion of the USSR. This is a discussion of a hypothetical historic scenario, and the question is a "what if" for Germany. And I think that even the mere suggestion that Hitler's plan for Eastern Europe should have been allowed to unfold is completely unacceptable. Let alone saying that it could in any way, shape, or form, be favourable to anyone. Any "us and them" approach is unacceptable. The cost would be dozens of millions dead people, period. And to a sane world, it shouldn't matter if those dead people were Russian, Jewish, Ukranian, German, Polish, Finnish, Japanese, Zimbabwean - they are all people. And the West's ambitions for a 'nicer Europe' aren't worth a single dead person more than Soviet ambitions for a 'nicer Europe'. It's unfortunate enough that both ambitions cost so much.

[Kapitan]

If we had stood united with hitler we would probably be still goose stepping down bond street saluting to a big swastika on top of every building, and seeing a portrait of our "great leader" at every turn.

Then the USSR bit well we wouldnt have a europe USSR would have engulfed it all, wouldnt have had cold war and america would be more than crapping themselves at this point.

So all in all GOOD outcome :-j

[kholemann]

President Reagan sided with Sadaam Hussain when Iraq battled Iran so it is possible some bizzare circumstance could have happened where the pacifist movement could have taken over the press and Roosevelt would have sided with Hitler had Hitler not declared war against the U.S. after the Japs attacked on 12/7. Today, the pacifist movement has taken over the press and still we went to war against Iraq so if one has a strong leader, such a thing is unlikely to happen. Roosevelt, I think, would never have become part of such an alliance, nor would have Truman.

[CCIP]

...pacifist? I don't think "pacifist" and "alliance with Hitler" really could end up in the same sentence. I can see further appeasement taking place at the behest of pacifists, but certainly NOT an alliance against the USSR as such. Or even with Hitler, with whom the idea is entirely irreconcilable :hmm:

[STEED]

Sixpack asked what if we stood united with Hitler.

Are we forgetting something Hitler had a belief the Jews were destroying German way of life along with the rest of that twisted crap he believed in. How many of us would be here today? If are grandparents were Jewish, communist, liberal, trade unionist, black and had mental problems, the list goes on. I am glad we stood up to that Evil swine, I would take Democracy any day of the week you can keep your police state.

[Sixpack]

Had one drink too much, Steed ? ;)

If not (yet): Then join me in this toast to freedom !

Here is to freedom ! :up: :()1:

:rock: etc...

[STEED]

Had one drink too much, Steed ? ;)

If not (yet): Then join me in this toast to freedom !

Here is to freedom ! :up: :()1:

:rock: etc...

:rotfl: :rotfl:

Why not :()1: :up:

[scandium]

Sixpack asked what if we stood united with Hitler.

Are we forgetting something Hitler had a belief the Jews were destroying German way of life along with the rest of that twisted crap he believed in. How many of us would be here today? If are grandparents were Jewish, communist, liberal, trade unionist, black and had mental problems, the list goes on. I am glad we stood up to that Evil swine, I would take Democracy any day of the week you can keep your police state.

There were other countries, besides Germany, that were influenced by the Eugenics movement - the US among them. By the time Hitler came to power in Germany, many American states had already passed, or would pass, laws for the forced sterilization of the "feeble minded". That's also where Hitler started, but he took the conclusion of the "science" to an extreme that later proved repellant.

Communists would later have a hard time of things during the Mcarthy era (of course it stopped short of gassing or shooting them, but that was also in the '50s and not the '30s) while all of this predated the Civil Rights movement when blacks in the US were still being sent to the back of the bus (when they weren't being lynched that is).

So the US had its own internal problems with various groups and the "twisted crap" that Hitler believed in may very well have found root in the US if things had gone a little differently. Or it may not have. You have to remember in any case that America was a very different place then, than it is today.

Edit: also recall that even while it was fighting this "evil" the US saw nothing wrong with rounding up Japanese American citizens and interning them in its own concentration camps.

[CCIP]

Two more thoughts:

Thought #1:

Let's forget about the mass killing. In fact let's forget about Hitler. Let's pretend the topic didn't mention Hitler, and instead in 1938-1939, Europe was dealing with a re-militarized version of the Weimar government.

Question: Why on earth would any European (or American) power want a massive German state?
This makes no sense. Newsflash: Germany was NOT a nice country, period. Even without Hitler, they invaded France twice in the preceding 80 years. They were also still rather pissed at France and Britain. Why would France want a stronger Germany? Why would Britain, still the dominant world power, want another, even apparently-friendly empire to deal with?

There was, of course, some sympathy towards Germany as regards to the apparent unfairness of the Versailles treaty. There was certainly will among European countries to mend that issue with Germany, and they did - it was called appeasement. They were quite willing to let Germany do the Anschluss, have Sudetenland - the Danzig corridor, please. But it's no accident that appeasement stopped at the invasion of the Czech republic. There was no reason that the West should NOT have been horrified at a Germany which wants the Czech republic or Poland for some reason, even forgetting Hitler. Meanwhile, Newsflash #2: Germany would have to go through those countries to get to the USSR. Assuming it didn't take them over, why on earth would Poland or the Czech republic would want to let German troops through? Do THEY want a stronger Germany of all people?

I think the bottom line is, Hitler or no Hitler, there isn't anyone who wanted another German empire, even a nice and 'democratic' one like Britain's. A strong Germany before WWII would rightly have been seen as a timebomb - wait, nevermind, it was a timebomb. And it would have been a timebomb with a slower clock if there wasn't a Hitler, but nothing more.

***

Thought #2:

From the original post, this struck me:


-Hitler as ruler surpreme: For a while: Yes. However we all know what happened to GJ Caesar. Nobody is immortal and it can be over with a flash of a knife.


What bothers me here is that..... so, let me get this straight, Hitler is not immortal, like everyone else, but Stalin is?

Um.

Newsflash #3: communism died without anyone having to destroy the USSR or kill the Jews and most Slavs. You think about the implications of that one for a while. :hmm:

[Deamon]

Hitler's death wouldn't have changed things much, I think. A short and brutal fight for power, some assassination and arrests and executions, and then another one of the leading elite would have taken his seat. Bohrmann, maybe Goebbels, and for sure: Goehring - these three come to my mind as the most likely candidates.

Dönitz maybe ?

[STEED]

Newsflash #3: communism died without anyone having to destroy the USSR or kill the Jews and most Slavs. You think about the implications of that one for a while. :hmm:

I agree the seeds of the downfall probably started in Poland with what's his name Lec something he stood up to the system and from that point on the cracks started. It's incredible how the Communist state fell like a pack of cards.

[TLAM Strike]

Newsflash #3: communism died without anyone having to destroy the USSR or kill the Jews and most Slavs. You think about the implications of that one for a while. :hmm: Right its not like the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan didn’t kill anyone or result in the disenfranchising of the Russian people with their government.

[CCIP]

Newsflash #3: communism died without anyone having to destroy the USSR or kill the Jews and most Slavs. You think about the implications of that one for a while. :hmm: Right its not like the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan didn’t kill anyone or result in the disenfranchising of the Russian people with their government.

You hadn't really read my post fully, or my previous posts, have you :(

The invasion of Afghanistan was a terrible war, for Soviet soldiers as well as obviously the Afghans. Vietnam wasn't pretty either. But for both, we're talking hundreds of thousands dead in a war that, if ideological in nature, was in both cases one for maintaining a sphere of influence rather than a systematic eradication of whole groups of nations.

Noone can whitewash Soviet rule. But it just doesn't run up in comparison to Hitler's plans, neither on the ideological nor practical levels.

[TLAM Strike]

The invasion of Afghanistan was a terrible war, for Soviet soldiers as well as obviously the Afghans. Vietnam wasn't pretty either. But for both, we're talking hundreds of thousands dead in a war that, if ideological in nature, was in both cases one for maintaining a sphere of influence rather than a systematic eradication of whole groups of nations.

Noone can whitewash Soviet rule. But it just doesn't run up in comparison to Hitler's plans, neither on the ideological nor practical levels. Well for one the invasion of Afghanistan was to bring Communism and Eastern society to the region, after all the (official) reason for the Soviet invasion was the murder of Soviet schoolteachers. (In this case I think we can learn a few things from old Ivan.)

But as for the Soviet's long-term plans they were nothing short of total world socialism. They believed that the only result of Capitalism and Communism existing on the same world was war until one defeated the other. I don’t think Hitler really thought that far ahead in his plans.

[CCIP]

But as for the Soviet's long-term plans they were nothing short of total world socialism. They believed that the only result of Capitalism and Communism existing on the same world was war until one defeated the other. I don’t think Hitler really thought that far ahead in his plans.

Quite opposite, actually, if you've read Mein Kampf. Straight from the horse's mouth, Hitler makes some very clear plans. He hides very little in that book of his. On the other hand, there has not been any clear texts on Soviet agenda from reliable sources; they've certainly adopted the Marxist theory, but according to Marx communism was not to be a product of international conflict, but rather class struggle within societies.

The brief but wide opening of the Soviet archives in the early 90's had revealed no evidence whatsoever of a global policy. By comparison, American Cold War policy against the Soviet Union had been far more clearly elaborated in a series of documents, none of which had so much as an equivalent in Soviet records.

In other words, the "Kremlin Design" idea is unfortunately nothing but a product of cold war propaganda. Which a lot of people still believe, 15 years after it was supposed to be done away with.

Soviet rule was far from resembling actual communism in reality. The Soviet regime has always been a totalitarian regime, and its goals weren't ideologically-based in the slightest. Again, archive evidence suggests that Soviet leadership was far more eager to conduct realpolitik and engage in all kinds of manuevering to expand and guard their sphere of influence. Which, authoritarian rule aside, is really not very different from what other large world powers had been doing all along. The means were ordinary; the end wasn't particularly attractive to the free world. Hitlers means, on the other hand, were strangely focused on genocide. There were clearly discriminatory (but comparatively limited in scale) repressions by Stalin against groups such as Chechens and Jews during the last years of his life, but there has been no precedent for genocide in the 40 years of post-war Soviet history. Not that this makes it any easier for the millions of repressed people; but at least the vast majority of them lived. Newsflash #4: in the real world, most people would prefer life under the worst of regimes to no life at all.

This isn't to suggest any love for the Soviet regime. This is merely to explain why ideology has nothing to do with the fact that the choice between Hitler and Stalin for the Soviets was "no freedom; death almost certain" vs "no freedom; death somewhat likely" :hmm:

[TLAM Strike]

This isn't to suggest any love for the Soviet regime. This is merely to explain why ideology has nothing to do with the fact that the choice between Hitler and Stalin for the Soviets was "no freedom; death almost certain" vs "no freedom; death somewhat likely" :hmm: Ahhh here is one thing that I don't think anyone got (at least no one in my high school economics class got) about Fascism. There are four socioeconomic systems, Capitalism (Democratic Government/Free Market Ex. USA), Democratic Socialism (Democratic Government/Free Market with Government controls Ex. Most of Western Europe today), Communism (Dictatorship/State Run Market Ex. CCCP), and last but not least Fascism (Dictatorship/Free Market Ex. Nazi Germany). No one in my class understood that (they all stared blankly at the teacher when he asked what is this fourth system he described was, I then remembered Messerschmitt, and Volkswagen they were companies not government run design bureaus like MiG or Sukoi and said "Fascism" with a smile of satisfaction.) So the point is there were freedoms under Hitler, they weren’t (to paraphrase the US Declaration of Independence) Life and Liberty but you could pursue Happiness… unless you were Jewish… or Gay… or Mentally Impaired… or etc.

Newsflash #4: in the real world, most people would prefer life under the worst of regimes to no life at all.

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
-Patrick Henry, Speech in Virginia Convention, Richmond (March 23, 1775)

[Type941]

I prefer a much more relevant WHAT IF discussions, such as what if the allies actually learned the lessons of WW1 and waged the war correctly - the whole WW2 would have lasted about 2 years or so. I'm reading a very good, solid and nonpropoganda analys of Blitzgrig Myth and gladly will share the thoughts once through. But that whole 'what if WE were fighting against Russia nonsense kinda bothers me. I AM RUSSIAN.

[STEED]

I AM RUSSIAN.

And you kicked Hitler out of Russia and all the way back to Berlin :yep:

[CCIP]

Newsflash #4: in the real world, most people would prefer life under the worst of regimes to no life at all.

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
-Patrick Henry, Speech in Virginia Convention, Richmond (March 23, 1775)

Patrick Henry, however, was a man fighting a "constitutional" (not really, perhaps parliamentary would be a better term) monarchy of the same general national origin and far, far milder goals. Had he lived through Stalin's time, I wonder what he would have said.

I think it's equally sad that Americans and those following their ideological basis - naturally given their history - look at the rest of the world and are in shock at how all these people aren't hot for the fundamental ideology of liberty, democracy and all the other nice things. I mean, how could they?

But think of it the same way as your reaction to when people - like some on this forum - accuse America of imperialism, your president of being a terrorist, and other nasty things of the sort. I go to Russian forums occasionally, and you'd be surprised at the sort of stuff they say about America!

But why do they? Very simple. Just as you can't see why they don't buy these high enlightened ideas of liberty and democracy, they can't understand why you buy something so superficial and unreal. People live in very different worlds. And there are billions of people in this world who'd rather have some potatoes than liberty.

Having seen the issue from both sides, I really do have sympathy for both alike. But one thing I have learned from growing up in tough circumstances of a different country is that the world is real and one really shouldn't underestimate how the fulfilment of basic biological needs will always trump the fulfilment of basic ideological needs - when it comes down to that choice. People are very easy to break. The NKVD had made a science of it back in the day.

I'll put my bottom line to everything: no -ism or -y is worth the life of even one innocent person. Fundamentally, WWII was thought for Nazism by Germany; but for survival by people of the USSR. There is absolutely no question about this. Maybe that's part of why the Soviets won.

---

PS - Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is, essentially, right. But only in that order. Happiness means nothing without liberty, and liberty means nothing without life. Sure Hitler's regime gave happiness. But what does a Russian care for that happiness if he's not allowed to live?! Likewise, what's liberty in public life to anyone if they can't put food on the table?

[TLAM Strike]

Newsflash #4: in the real world, most people would prefer life under the worst of regimes to no life at all.

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
-Patrick Henry, Speech in Virginia Convention, Richmond (March 23, 1775)

Patrick Henry, however, was a man fighting a "constitutional" (not really, perhaps parliamentary would be a better term) monarchy of the same general national origin and far, far milder goals. Had he lived through Stalin's time, I wonder what he would have said.

Well I wouldn’t go that far. The Nazis and Soviets may have only said they wanted to conquer the world, the Nazis even tried but the British did. All under the pretext of bringing civilization to the "savages" of the world- "The White Mans Burden". Now the British didn’t massacre large numbers of people based on race, but they certainly were expansionist and imperialist and gave no or limited rights and repsentation to the Americans.

Remember, “the sun never sets on the British Empire” (but now adays I’ve hear it’s never sets on the Golden Arches, scary what the world is coming too).

I think it's equally sad that Americans and those following their ideological basis - naturally given their history - look at the rest of the world and are in shock at how all these people aren't hot for the fundamental ideology of liberty, democracy and all the other nice things. I mean, how could they?

But think of it the same way as your reaction to when people - like some on this forum - accuse America of imperialism, your president of being a terrorist, and other nasty things of the sort. I go to Russian forums occasionally, and you'd be surprised at the sort of stuff they say about America!

But why do they? Very simple. Just as you can't see why they don't buy these high enlightened ideas of liberty and democracy, they can't understand why you buy something so superficial and unreal. People live in very different worlds. And there are billions of people in this world who'd rather have some potatoes than liberty.
No I do understand a bit why they don't care so much about Liberty and Democracy, (oh no here is another -ism) Nationalism. When the USA was founded it was basically cut off from the direct influence of most of Europe, the founding fathers even went so far as to distance the language from British English when ever possible. The entire slate was wiped clean for us, for the rest of the world that slate has never been wiped totally clean every time a nation gets close something happens to remind them of their past. Take France for an example they get rid of a Monarchy that’s been busy fighting wars with its neighbors for centuries with a man who starts off by doing some good (“the accused is innocent until proven guilty” for one)- but then he decides to try and conquer all of Europe. They finally move past Napoleon only to be sucked in to both World Wars and then the Cold War. Or then of course there is Russia, for a few centuries the Tsars went around conquering and fighting until Lenin and crew take over. Then WWII happens and they are fighting an invader. They finally win and then they are worried that the West is going to drop the A-Bomb on them. Eventually the Soviets go bankrupt and a Democracy starts to form until… well check back a few decades, maybe Aliens who knows. They just can’t move past a half dozen centuries of one way of life no matter how hard they try, something or someone just drags them back.


PS - Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is, essentially, right. But only in that order. Happiness means nothing without liberty, and liberty means nothing without life. Sure Hitler's regime gave happiness. But what does a Russian care for that happiness if he's not allowed to live?! Likewise, what's liberty in public life to anyone if they can't put food on the table? With out liberty you may have life but its not yours. With out liberty whose to stop the goverment from just coming in and taking your food and sleeping in your beds and stuff (way to go little known 3rd amendment and the always quoted 4th & 5th amendments).