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.

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.

: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: .

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.

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:

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.

Lesser of two weevils?

He who would pun would pick a pocket. :P

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
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.

:(

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...

What is a weevil ? :know:

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"?

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

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 :)

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.

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.

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

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.

...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:

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.