What if Germany had won the war?

If you are going to think of something positive then everything would be a lot more efficient. No people are as organized and industrious as the Germans. Actually, I'm not sure that they were as brutal as some people think. Two of my grandparents were POWs in Germany for a couple of years. They used to say that they were actually treated well and stayed in touch with a couple of Germans through a few letters after they left Germany.
 
If Germany had won the war it would have been a huge genocide in the iberian peninsula due to the "ethnic cleaning".
 
Racism is killing Eupedia

Indeed. Tell that to ALL the LatAm Iberian haters on this forum.

Yeah, it's crazy. These people project stuff into the situation which defies logic. :confused:

I mean, let there be no doubt about it, Germany winning World War II would produce a very depressing world. There has been a lot of speculation in fiction about this, including this, this and this, all which I think are not exactly plausible but are disturbing enough.

Now, regarding Germany winning World War One, that is a very a different question...
 
If Germany had won the war, we would have 2 inquistions in history , the Spanish one and a German one
 
Now, regarding Germany winning World War One, that is a very a different question...

I agree, Germany winning WWI was also a far more likely scenario than the possibility of it ever winning WWII. Imo, there is no way Germany could have held all the territories it had occupied and wanted to occupy (Russia) for the long term and frankly, stupid to think that it could. The area is too vast, the logistics almost impossible, the opposition too numerous and a population can only be held by force and fear for so long. There will always come a time for revolt.
 
If you are going to think of something positive then everything would be a lot more efficient. No people are as organized and industrious as the Germans. Actually, I'm not sure that they were as brutal as some people think. Two of my grandparents were POWs in Germany for a couple of years. They used to say that they were actually treated well and stayed in touch with a couple of Germans through a few letters after they left Germany.

Well, the German Army generally treated POW's from the UK, USA etc reasonably well. The Waffen SS were known to kill Allied soldiers who were wounded or had surrendered, but then the SS were the true believers. It was the SS who ran the Death Camps. They were absolute fanatics, and there was little love lost between the SS and Whermact(sp?).

It has to be said that the German Army was much more civilised in it's treatment of POW's than their allies in the Imperial Japanese Army who committed atrocities against captured soldiers and civilians as a matter of policy.
 
I agree, Germany winning WWI was also a far more likely scenario than the possibility of it ever winning WWII. Imo, there is no way Germany could have held all the territories it had occupied and wanted to occupy (Russia) for the long term and frankly, stupid to think that it could. The area is too vast, the logistics almost impossible, the opposition too numerous and a population can only be held by force and fear for so long. There will always come a time for revolt.

The Nazi's believed they did not have to hold the population by force indefinitely; the plan was to destroy Russia's armed forces, then exterminate the civilian population. The Nazi's regarded the Slavic Races as "untermenschen" - subhuman. If the Nazi's had managed to destroy Russia's army, they could have slaughtered the civilian population. Of course there would have been resistance movements, but poorly armed civilians against highly trained, heavily armed, fanatical soldiers? There would only have been one winner.
 
Not necessarily, Iraq and Afghanistan have proved what a willing civilian population can do against supposed highly trained soldiers. But your explanation only accounts for Russia, Germany was also occupying Poland, the Balkans, France, Belguim, The Netherlands, etc etc and I was including those in my comment. Germany stretched itself too thin fighting a war on two fronts (plus Africa), crazy logic.
 
Not necessarily, Iraq and Afghanistan have proved what a willing civilian population can do against supposed highly trained soldiers. QUOTE]

Antigone, don't compare apples to oranges.
 
Well, it all depends on the landscape.
Germany could never win a war against Russia!
Russia is just too vast! Too big!
The same mistake Napoleon made.

If you mention Belgium, The Netherlands and France... Well it's easy to control the flat planes.
No place to hide.
The hilly regions of France were another story!
The Germans knew they couldn't control them, and so they left that part of France unoccupied..
With the support of the fascist Vichy clique!

Iraq is easy to get under control. Afghanistan is impossible.
Afghanistan has mountains, with forests also.
Thousands of hiding places.
Occupying forces may have the day, but the Afghans have the night..
Just like in Vietnam.


Study some military history before anyone makes remarks about the past, please! Please!
 
Well, the German Army generally treated POW's from the UK, USA etc reasonably well. The Waffen SS were known to kill Allied soldiers who were wounded or had surrendered, but then the SS were the true believers. It was the SS who ran the Death Camps. They were absolute fanatics, and there was little love lost between the SS and Whermact(sp?).

It has to be said that the German Army was much more civilised in it's treatment of POW's than their allies in the Imperial Japanese Army who committed atrocities against captured soldiers and civilians as a matter of policy.

Sorry, but learn again about history.
The SS had some "divisions". The ones who took care of the concentration camps, were just scum.
They had the official title of being SS, but they had nothing to do with the fighting divisions.

Another point is, the SS always got the best material in a battle. So it was very easy to get the honor of winning that battle.
While the Wehrmacht did the dirty jobs.

The same we see in the British Army. Scots, Welsh and Irish, and also Australians, Canadians, Polish, South Africans and whatever do the dirty jobs and the hard fighting, and when a battle is nearly won, the English come in with waving standards, claiming they won the battle.
 
Well, it all depends on the landscape.
Germany could never win a war against Russia!
Russia is just too vast! Too big!
The same mistake Napoleon made.

If you mention Belgium, The Netherlands and France... Well it's easy to control the flat planes.
No place to hide.
The hilly regions of France were another story!
The Germans knew they couldn't control them, and so they left that part of France unoccupied..
With the support of the fascist Vichy clique!

Iraq is easy to get under control. Afghanistan is impossible.
Afghanistan has mountains, with forests also.
Thousands of hiding places.
Occupying forces may have the day, but the Afghans have the night..
Just like in Vietnam.


Study some military history before anyone makes remarks about the past, please! Please!

Again, it depends on just how far you are willing to go. I believe Alexander the Great defeated the Afghans by the simple expedient of slaughtering every man, woman, child, horse, dog and goat who offered him the slightest resistance, To this day, the Afghans tell legends about Alexander, "the Demon".

Fast forward to now and, if I was utterly ruthless and had total control over the UK's Armed Forces, I could "win" the war against the Taliban relatively easily. I'd simply withdraw all my troops and, once they were at a safe distance, Nuke both Afghanistan and Pakistan. I'd also impose a Final Solution on all UK Muslims.
 
Sorry, but learn again about history.
The SS had some "divisions". The ones who took care of the concentration camps, were just scum.
They had the official title of being SS, but they had nothing to do with the fighting divisions.

Another point is, the SS always got the best material in a battle. So it was very easy to get the honor of winning that battle.
While the Wehrmacht did the dirty jobs.

The same we see in the British Army. Scots, Welsh and Irish, and also Australians, Canadians, Polish, South Africans and whatever do the dirty jobs and the hard fighting, and when a battle is nearly won, the English come in with waving standards, claiming they won the battle.

I'm well aware of the difference between Waffen SS and Einsatzkommandos.

My bold: I'm Scottish, so you're preaching to the choir with that one.:grin:
 
Well, this quote is typical for the policy of the USA before WWII.

Whereas Roosevelt tended to be flexible in coping with the Russians, Truman held sterner views. "If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible. . . ." he said as a Senator in 1941. This basic attitude prepared him to adopt, from the start of his Presidency, a firm policy.

In fact, Truman already has said that earlier. It was published already in the 1930's.

Think of it what would have happened if the Soviet Union had attacked Germany!
Would the USA have helped the Nazi's?

According to what Truman said that would have been possible.

It clearly shows that the USA had indeed the wish that as much Russians would be killed as possible.
And in that way they gave passive support to the Nazi's.
They even shipped cargo to Murmansk to hide their true policy.


Source: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0508.html
 
Last edited:
Again, it depends on just how far you are willing to go. I believe Alexander the Great defeated the Afghans by the simple expedient of slaughtering every man, woman, child, horse, dog and goat who offered him the slightest resistance, To this day, the Afghans tell legends about Alexander, "the Demon".

Fast forward to now and, if I was utterly ruthless and had total control over the UK's Armed Forces, I could "win" the war against the Taliban relatively easily. I'd simply withdraw all my troops and, once they were at a safe distance, Nuke both Afghanistan and Pakistan. I'd also impose a Final Solution on all UK Muslims.


Of course.
But for a western so called democracy it's impossible to use the same tactics as the Romans did.
And nuking some area backfires immediately.

About Alexander, I'll ask an Afghan colleague about that.. :unsure:
 
Again, it depends on just how far you are willing to go. I believe Alexander the Great defeated the Afghans by the simple expedient of slaughtering every man, woman, child, horse, dog and goat who offered him the slightest resistance, To this day, the Afghans tell legends about Alexander, "the Demon".

Fast forward to now and, if I was utterly ruthless and had total control over the UK's Armed Forces, I could "win" the war against the Taliban relatively easily. I'd simply withdraw all my troops and, once they were at a safe distance, Nuke both Afghanistan and Pakistan. I'd also impose a Final Solution on all UK Muslims.


Nope only the Muslims do,


All the none muslims love him,
there is ancient poetry about Alexander by an Uzbeki poet, and samarkande area
better read it to see how they feel about Alexander,
 
Penetration of the CIA spy, double agent, and other scum of Germany a lot.
 
Germany would surely had won the war, had it not been for Hitler interference with his generals.

here what some other guy wrote about it
" the Germans were 12 miles from taking Moscow over and if Hitler had listened to Von Manstein and went after Moscow in October instead of the dead of winter they would have taken the city with no problems instead Hitler waited until the Siberian troops who just got back from fighting the Japanese in Russia came back and counterattacked the Germans just as they were about to take the city. By the way Hitler was lazy when it came to the British he never wanted to attack the British because he was good friends with alot of their politicians it was only Winston Churchill that he hated because he wanted a peace treaty with Britain in all actuality. He did not capitalize on Dunkirk where he could have effectively taken out 300,000 British fighters and the Blitz of England was not authorized by him but by Hermann Goering. They were three weeks away from wiping the RAF spitfire bases when they thought they had already defeated the RAF so they decided to bomb the major cities of England and their industrial cities. "

So yeah, what if they did win?

Well, hitler had visions of architecture that would last thousands of years, admiring the greek temples and such. So we probably would see a lot of huge building, he also wanted to redesign berlin and rename it germania or something. He wasn't at all into the whole race thing as much as for example Himmler, Saying that it's silly to spread information about past trough media which shows the germans hunching over camp fire while the Romans and Greeks has reached the highest levels of culture. Not in those words of course.

So the holocaust would have gone it's course, germany would have established colonies in Africa and i don't really have any idea what more would happend.
 

This thread has been viewed 61042 times.

Back
Top