What if Germany had won the war?

Ultralars.. Are you one of Breiviks friends?
History happened like it happened.
We know all what happened.
German bombers couldn't get people on an island frightened.
That's when you are on an island. One gun is enough.
People in Norway learned that lesson a month or so ago.
The Germans could never ever conquer England.
Not even in their wettest dreams!
They could forget Scotland and Wales even more!

And Churchill really said Hitler was one of his best Allied Generals.

Thank God Hitler was a stupid ass.
 
Penetration of the CIA spy, double agent, and other scum of Germany a lot.

Talk nicely.. What you say makes no sense at all!

To write is to inform the other forum users what you think.
What you wrote is complete and utter nonsense.

Please explain, what you mean.
 
Hmm, no it is worse the CIA asked former Nazi officers to work for them. So Nazi spies could tell a lot of lies about the Soviet Union, and the USA bought that shit, and so the cold war started.

The reason why the Nazi's never could win the war, was a simple logistic problem.
They couldn't keep up producing enough materials to fight on.

Another point is, they wasted a lot of technology and materials in rather inefficient weapons.
V1 and V2 were a military blunder.
Armored vehicles were too complex in maintenance.

But the main reason is what Churchill once said.. "Don't kill Hitler, because he is our best general!"
Of course it was a joke, but it had a serious undertone.
Churchill was right.
Yes but you forgot to mention that USA and GB created Hitler so he could defeat comunistic SSSR , and then atacked him when he atack on Poland together with SSSR . Nacies had grown out from millitary movement that stoped spreading of comunism in Central and west Europe after I WW - remember Hungarian soviet republic , Bavarian soviet republic and Spartacid rebelion in Berlin under Rossa Luxemburg , if there was not Ernest Rem and Cornelius Kodreanu comunism will be all over Europe.
 
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.
There was never plan of exterminating Slavic civilian population , but to subdue them. Do you have some proof for such claims?
 
There wouldnt be any diference betwen today Europe and Europe if Hitler would won , ofcourse he was dictator , and there wouldnt be freedom , but is Europe today really free and democratic with polithical corectnes and cameras that catch every move .
 
Yes but you forgot to mention that USA and GB created Hitler so he could defeat comunistic SSSR , and then atacked him when he atack on Poland together with SSSR . Nacies had grown out from millitary movement that stoped spreading of comunism in Central and west Europe after I WW - remember Hungarian soviet republic , Bavarian soviet republic and Spartacid rebelion in Berlin under Rossa Luxemburg , if there was not Ernest Rem and Cornelius Kodreanu comunism will be all over Europe.
that is crazy and makes no sense at all, Hitler was not created by USA and GB, he rose to power from the fact that germany felt it was betrayed, had a ruined economy, ruined nationalistic view,etc. The reason he attained dictatorship is simply incidental, The president died and he refused to vote inn a new one. It's true that if he hasn't rose to power communism would spread wild, remember that the idea of communism is German( karl marx). But it's ridiculous to think that USA created a front figgure like Hitler to make the country not communistic, if it was true then it doesn't make sense that Hitler was a socialist.
 
that is crazy and makes no sense at all, Hitler was not created by USA and GB, he rose to power from the fact that germany felt it was betrayed, had a ruined economy, ruined nationalistic view,etc. The reason he attained dictatorship is simply incidental, The president died and he refused to vote inn a new one. It's true that if he hasn't rose to power communism would spread wild, remember that the idea of communism is German( karl marx). But it's ridiculous to think that USA created a front figgure like Hitler to make the country not communistic, if it was true then it doesn't make sense that Hitler was a socialist.
It is nice to meet a man who still believe in coincidences .I just said USA and GB made Hitler ( for fight against comunism ) , not that they bringed him to rule -that was unpredictable event , they expect him to stay minor political anomaly , your point was god - social climate made him grove from insignificant , marginal, militaristic group to numerous party that could block work of Parlament by living the sessions
Yes I know comunism is German idea . When Hitler was created he was not front figure - he was just colporal with talent to speack and few hundreds folowers ( you probably know he was send in party by secret service ) . Well Hitlers party was socialistic only by name ( NSDAP) , but his folowers were greatest enemies of Socialists and Comunists . Remember Ernest Rem and SA .
Thanks for answering
 
The World would be better if Germany had won the war.

If Germany had won the war it would have been a huge genocide in the iberian peninsula due to the "ethnic cleaning".

You think so? Yo don't take the drugs, man.
 
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.
Bullshits.
Germans would have NEVER taken Moscow, they were repelled on 7th december 1941 by a strong and huge counteroffensive organized by Zukhov, there were no chances of storming Moscow.
 
What a question!, We'd all be bald.
 
When I saw the title of the thread, I asked to myself "which one?".

In reality, the WW II was a "continuation", or if you like a somehow necessary consequence of how the things were settled (or not) in the first one.

This thread somehow attracted me for some time, but it was not until I read this article in Asia Times that I decided to participate:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/ML15Ad01.html

The article by an Italian "expert about China", deals with paralelism between the trayectory of Germany in the XX Century and that of China in the lasts and coming years... as scientific, economical and military powers that by its mere existance, "subvert" the established "status quo".

(By the way, it includes a comment or two about the issue of "German arrogance", that I think were mentioned recently on the forum)

By the way, it is my opportunity to recomend to "Muzungu" and "Cimerianbroke" this book:

http://www.amazon.de/Aufstieg-Untergang-Republik-Weimar-1918-1933/dp/3548265081

On the other hand, I don't know if in Germany the subject is popular, but at least in the literature in English, every so often appear these fictions novels about the posibility of a Germany victory in WWII, some of them even taken to the screen...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherland_(novel)

Now, answering the direct question posed by @edao... (in the understanding that my answers reflect my personal values)

Would Europe be a better place to live if Germany had won the war?

No.

Certainly not for Jews, Gipsis and a lot of minorities, religious, racial and of sexual preferences.

These would have been exterminated altogether.

Then the Slavs would have been enslaved and subject to slow genocide (almost all Eastern Europe).

Even the "Mischlinge" from South Europeans were undesired (e.g. with Italians and Greeks).

Europe could have been "better", but only to Germans.

Would a united Europe run by Germany have stopped America dominating the world in the way it has over the last 50 years?

I don't know.

What role would a German Empire have played in the cold war?

There would have been no cold war, at least not against the USSR/Russia... but probably one between the USA and Europe.

Anyway, for that to happen once the war actually happen, the Germans must have defeated the USA and/or the Russians, which actually would have been very difficult.

As an example, lets remember that the Russians sustained arround 7-8 million casualties in 1941 alone. And they were able to stop the Wehrmacht and become a more efficient and large war machine every succesive year of the war.

The Americans had more industry than Germany, and at the end, the vision to have A-bombs by 1945.

Victory of Germany after 1942: Impossible.

Would we be speaking German and would that be a bad thing?

German is a beautiful language (once you more or less understand its complexities).

I don't think that the only reasons that English is so widespread is only because of colonialism, trade, and the popularity of the Angloamerican culture. English is a very simple an easy language to learn.

Even other Europeans, do not make the effort learn much German.

Maybe some of us will have some confirmation about it in the case of future internationalitation (or not) of Chinese.

Looking at the current crisis Germany seems by far to be the best run country in Europe, they now seem to be dictating terms of economic management to half of Europe via the back door. Germany are now turning away from Nuclear power and have an economy based more on manufacturing real things instead of playing with number in financial casinos.

Germany has been doing better than most other countries in Europe. One or two years ago, in a theme about Turkey, I said that Germany (and Turkey) will survive better an economic crisis than some other countries that dedicated themselves to not very productive things, including some in the South dedicated, whose finances weren mostly about money laundering.

Even when I do not hold for impossible that Germany too could show signs of weakness in the following years (they are Germans, not Martians), I admit that they are showing themseves as the great economical and historical force that was begining to be evident at the begining of the XX Century, and it seems that its rise as conductor of Europe, was finally irrepresible.

Regards.
 
Most likely that Europe could turn into a radioactive desert because for USA would be much easier to nuke nazis than fight in conventional war + Europe with nazis domination is place without Slavic nations, Jews and in such case Europe totally depend from brain of one mad dictator with extremely racist views, his sick head could one day give birth to the idea that all countries which has been defeated by Germany have not right to exist because they are "inferior race".
Just check casualties of USSR, there in 2 times more civilian casualties than military. This shows the methods and intentions of the Wehrmacht.

Where do you think the ability to produce nuclear weapons came from? Which country developed the first jet aircraft?
 
If Germany had won the war it would have been a huge genocide in the iberian peninsula due to the "ethnic cleaning".

Actually, I think that politically the Spaniards maneuvered pretty good in WW II... besides the Spanish Civil War (which coud be considered as a prelude of WW II), the Spaniards resisted attempts of Hitler to make them enter the war. And altough their sympathies were with the Axis and in fact they sended volunteers to the Russian Front, they managed to walk away without suffering foreign occupation, and warfare own territory.

Besides that, the Spaniards were respected by Germans and Russians as good fighters. When Romanian, Hungarian and Italian divisions melted in front of the Soviet attacks, the Spaniards showed at least the resistance of the German divisions, as showed in battles like Krasny Bor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Krasny_Bor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Division

Regards.
 
Act

Besides that, the Spaniards were respected by Germans and Russians as good fighters. When Romanian, Hungarian and Italian divisions melted in front of the Soviet attacks, the Spaniards showed at least the resistance of the German divisions, as showed in battles like Krasny Bor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Krasny_Bor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Division

Regards.

When I was in Poland, I knew that best soldiers are polish. When I came to Canada I've leaned that Germans feared canadian soldiers the most. If you go to US, Russia, Japan, Spain, England, etc, you will learn that they had best soldiers doring WWII

I just wonder if this is the same for France and Italy? Most of us know only the oposit from international point of view about these two.

PS. No offence, it is not my point of view. It is what people are saying.
 
At least disgusting MTV would not exist.
 
When I was in Poland, I knew that best soldiers are polish. When I came to Canada I've leaned that Germans feared canadian soldiers the most. If you go to US, Russia, Japan, Spain, England, etc, you will learn that they had best soldiers doring WWII

I think that is a most natural and healthy thing, specially when we consider what a soldier is all about.

A soldier without patriotism, or without the patriotic suport of its people, is to pitty.

I just wonder if this is the same for France and Italy? Most of us know only the oposit from international point of view about these two.

I think that @Maciamo, or another user, put time ago a theme with the title "Are the French weak-kneeded", or something.

mmm... here it is:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showth...French-deserve-their-reputation-as-weak-kneed

In reality, the military history of France is mostly a history of bravery. What happened, is that the Americans didn't liked the rapid fall of France in WW II, and then there was this knee-jerk propaganda about "cheese, monkeys and surrendering".

Howerver, how many countries could have resisted things like the battle of Verdun, in WW I? There (in a single battle) the French lose 2 - 3 more people than the Americans in the whole WW II !!.

The problem is when you let what others think of you affect you.

The shame is when we swallow propaganda and clichees created by othes, without doing a personal "homework" to verify in reliable sources, this or that.

That applies no only to this matter - military history- , but all the stereotypes that we see around, specially when they come from Hollywood, or being sold by the press.

I for example, don't know much (o better say, nothing) about, let's say, Robert Mugabe... I only know that he is presented in the western Press as an incredible corrupt and inept African president. Maybe what they say about him is true... but I will not be repeating the same things, or buy it, until I myself, have gone to serious sources, and do a little homwork for myself.

++++++++++++++++

About the Italians, is more or less the same as with the French. I didn't know that the Italians showed any cowardice in WW I, or anytime before.

In WW II, they had problems from the begining:

a.) Mussolini entered the war with a cynical attitude ("to seat in the negotiations table"), with an unmotivated public opinion.

b.) From the start, they performed bad against the Greek.

c.) They didn't had really the means for a mechanized war in the Sahara against the British.

d.) They surrendered ("betrayed" the Germans) when the allies began to invade and bomb Italian cities.

Actually, (d.) was pretty much intelligent, and the logical thing to do. Although there was a fierce battle in Italy anyway, at least much of the cultural heritage of Italy, specially Rome, was preserved.

The Germans fought fiercely to the end, in a lost cause, and lost uselessly much of their architectural heritage.

But this are my very personal points of view.

PS. No offence, it is not my point of view. It is what people are saying.

I take no offence. Why should I?

We are here just amicably exchanging points of view.

Regards.
 
I have a better question: What would have happened if Cruise ....oops I mean von Stauffenberg had succeeded in July 1944?
 
noting would happen...
we would all now write in forum in German, and by now fascist politicians would be replaced by some more peaceful people.....
so there would be EU with single language - German... and in villages when we visit grandparents we would still speak own languages...
 
Hitler was in his 60s at the end of the war and his co-ideologues
were also advancing in age. There had already been an assasination
attempt. In that light, how soon would infighting have made many
changes (I can't imagine what) in the aftermath of a German win?
 

This thread has been viewed 61050 times.

Back
Top