PDA

View Full Version : What if Germany had won the war?



edao
21-06-11, 10:46
Would Europe be a better place to live if Germany had won the war?

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

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

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

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.

This is a what if discussion, I'm not pro-Nazi.:grin:

Anton, Bear's den
21-06-11, 11:55
Would Europe be a better place to live if Germany had won the war?

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.

Elias2
21-06-11, 15:28
Poland wouldn't exist and the slavs would have faced extinction in eastern europe. Hitler didn't like them.

Mzungu mchagga
21-06-11, 20:23
Would Europe be a better place to live if Germany had won the war?

Are you a t roll?


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.


This is a paradox! If Germany had won the war then, it would still be a dictatorship now and wouldn't care about people's concerns about nuclear power. It wouldn't even try to fix financial problems in a domestic way, but just take what it needs from other people in the world (after they got mass-murdered).

iapetoc
21-06-11, 20:47
Hahahahaha
they would invade Savanah USA

edao
21-06-11, 22:30
Are you a t roll?

No, are you?




This is a paradox! If Germany had won the war then, it would still be a dictatorship now and wouldn't care about people's concerns about nuclear power.

That's a pretty big asumption, Spain and Portugal had dictators into the 70's and are now democratic, I find it unlikely Germany would have remained undemocratic into contemporary times.

Carlitos
21-06-11, 23:10
If Germany had won the war once it has been possible there would have been another war or revolution or any other type of survey.

Mzungu mchagga
22-06-11, 13:58
No, are you?



That's a pretty big asumption, Spain and Portugal had dictators into the 70's and are now democratic, I find it unlikely Germany would have remained undemocratic into contemporary times.

Mmh, it's left to a lot of speculation what would have happened if...
We can't even tell how a successor of Hitler would have managed politics differently. However, I would take strong distance to speculation if Europe would be a better place now.
I don't know, what is your personal opinion? How do you define "better"?

TanyG
22-06-11, 17:21
There would be no Jews all over the world, Russia would be a part of Germany, so it's great that Russia beat the hmm, everything out of Hitler:D

watch Internet TV
free online tv (http://watchtvonlinefree.net)

Gavroche
22-06-11, 18:42
What if Germany had won the war?
If the NAZIS had won the war:
No childhood...
No adolescence...
Patriarchal society...
No technology...
No drugs (except maybe alcohol and cigarettes)...
No arts...
One book...
One color...
One way of life...

And a huge cramp in the right arm...

Carlitos
22-06-11, 23:09
If I had won the war with no end these policies have been good enough and would have entered a self-destructive spiral, somewhere would have come a liberator or freedom would finally lost again the battle for no reason.

Reinaert
23-06-11, 00:22
There is no chance that Germany would ever have won the war.

The English and Americans invaded Europe on 6-6-1944 because the Russian Army was too successful in that period in beating the Germans. That's why the Anglo-Americans had to hurry to get a piece of the cake.
As a result, a lot of spies, double spies and other German scum got infiltrated in the CIA.

And those bastards rule the world until today!

Antigone
23-06-11, 07:32
Reinaert makes a decent point, the Nazi scientists who were smuggled out of Germany and into the US are responsible for the advances in western weaponry and space programmes etc. So in a sense the war wasn't lost, just continued under a different banner.

iapetoc
23-06-11, 13:05
There is no chance that Germany would ever have won the war.

The English and Americans invaded Europe on 6-6-1944 because the Russian Army was too successful in that period in beating the Germans. That's why the Anglo-Americans had to hurry to get a piece of the cake.
As a result, a lot of spies, double spies and other German scum got infiltrated in the CIA.

And those bastards rule the world until today!



Hahaha don't say that date, Christians will curse you,
kidding, you are a satanic creature

6 6 1944 1944=1+9+4+4=18= 3x6

6 6 666 the number of the beast ;))))))))))))))))))))))))))

the above is for fun and not even think about it, as conspiracy.

Gavroche
23-06-11, 16:23
Or:

6 6 1944 = 6+6+1+9+4+4 = 6+9+6+1+4+4 = 6+9+6+9 = 2x69!!!

Crazy tongues numbers!!!

:indifferent:...sorry...:ashamed2:...I'm going to split...

Reinaert
23-06-11, 20:31
Reinaert makes a decent point, the Nazi scientists who were smuggled out of Germany and into the US are responsible for the advances in western weaponry and space programmes etc. So in a sense the war wasn't lost, just continued under a different banner.

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.

Mzungu mchagga
24-06-11, 20:19
There is no chance that Germany would ever have won the war.

The English and Americans invaded Europe on 6-6-1944 because the Russian Army was too successful in that period in beating the Germans. That's why the Anglo-Americans had to hurry to get a piece of the cake.
As a result, a lot of spies, double spies and other German scum got infiltrated in the CIA.

And those bastards rule the world until today!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz7k4wGsGWo

Somehow I had to think about you, Reinaert, when I heard this song first! :D

Reinaert
25-06-11, 09:37
Yes, he is magnificent! :good_job:

Anton, Bear's den
25-06-11, 13:39
Warning, Hitler has been detected

4904

DavidCoutts
13-07-11, 01:56
I would'nt be posting this as Scotland would have been wiped out; the Nazis considered the Celtic Nations to be on a par with Jews, Slavs etc.

Might have had something to do with the nasty habit Scottish, Welsh and Irish soldiers had of giving Biblical kickings to the "ubermenschen" Waffen SS...:laughing::flame::gun:

Gusar
13-07-11, 06:51
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.

Canek
13-07-11, 20:28
If Germany had won the war it would have been a huge genocide in the iberian peninsula due to the "ethnic cleaning".

spongetaro
13-07-11, 21:02
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

Cambrius (The Red)
13-07-11, 21:28
Racism is killing Eupedia

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

Taranis
13-07-11, 22:14
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. :confused2:

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_in_the_High_Castle), this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherland_(novel)) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Presence_of_Mine_Enemies), 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...

zanipolo
14-07-11, 00:24
If Germany had won the war, we would have 2 inquistions in history , the Spanish one and a German one

Antigone
14-07-11, 07:05
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.

DavidCoutts
14-07-11, 14:04
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.

DavidCoutts
14-07-11, 14:21
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.

Antigone
14-07-11, 18:21
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.

LeBrok
14-07-11, 19:04
[QUOTE=Antigone;375581]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.

Reinaert
14-07-11, 19:17
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!

Reinaert
14-07-11, 19:29
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.

DavidCoutts
15-07-11, 00:17
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.

DavidCoutts
15-07-11, 00:18
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:

Reinaert
15-07-11, 10:45
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

Reinaert
15-07-11, 10:56
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.. :thinking:

iapetoc
15-07-11, 13:29
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,

MyJuliet
16-07-11, 04:55
Penetration of the CIA spy, double agent, and other scum of Germany a lot.

ultralars
28-08-11, 22:03
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.

Reinaert
28-08-11, 22:43
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.

Reinaert
28-08-11, 23:03
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.

Bodin
30-08-11, 09:41
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.

Bodin
30-08-11, 09:44
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?

Bodin
30-08-11, 09:47
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 .

ultralars
19-09-11, 13:09
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.

Bodin
20-09-11, 06:03
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

Rinconete
20-10-11, 03:11
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.

Xander
10-12-11, 16:57
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.

Carlos
10-12-11, 17:25
What a question!, We'd all be bald.

Spion Stirlitz
14-12-11, 21:55
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.

Blanton
14-12-11, 23:22
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?

Spion Stirlitz
15-12-11, 01:21
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.

LeBrok
15-12-11, 02:13
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.

Franco
15-12-11, 03:06
At least disgusting MTV would not exist.

Spion Stirlitz
15-12-11, 03:44
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/showthread.php?24137-Do-the-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.

razor
15-12-11, 04:03
I have a better question: What would have happened if Cruise ....oops I mean von Stauffenberg had succeeded in July 1944?

how yes no 2
31-12-11, 01:26
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...

himagain
21-01-12, 05:24
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?

Taharqa
04-02-12, 02:18
The world would be in chaos.

LeBrok
04-02-12, 03:47
Germany wouldn't have won the war because crazy loon was in power there. The arrogance and blind believe in might of their armies was a demise and worst enemy of Japan and Germany.

If someone more stoic was in power in Germany and emperor of Japan was more pragmatic, they would attack Soviet Union from two sides, finishing it off before they made moves against US. They would consolidate their holdings; Germany: whole Europe, Middle east and Africa; Japan: most of Asia, Australia and pacific islands. Now, their combined GDP and resources would be greater than those of US. Now they would be ready to fight US, though I'm still not convinced if US would loose, I'm not saying win, but just survive.
US would still be the first one with A bomb, a third of global GDP, and top technologies, with stratospheric bombers to deliver A bomb.
We are lucky, it didn't turn this way, and we didn't want to see the total war with 1950 armament. Even if Germany won at the end, we would be living in devastated post atom war world.

L.D.Brousse
11-03-12, 16:45
As an American with French/German/Scot/Welsh Roots I would like to chime in to defend my country. First I do not think we dominate the world not in the way the European powers did. In a nut shell we are you I have Family members buried in Europe from the first and second world wars that went to fight for wars that did not really affect us. I fought in the Iraq war in 2008 I would love to see a perfect world with perfect people. But we descend from waring tribes and warfare is in our blood and there it will stay. If Germany would have won the war. I think with the exception of people it deemed subhuman life would have went on. without the second world war we would not have near the technological advances we have today. War always gives birth to innovations. But then again I don't blame Germany as a whole people in general tend to believe what their government tells them lies or truth none of us are free of that

sparkey
12-03-12, 18:38
First I do not think we dominate the world not in the way the European powers did.

A double negative! I assume you meant the single negative form of this?


In a nut shell we are you I have Family members buried in Europe from the first and second world wars that went to fight for wars that did not really affect us.

WWI and WWII didn't affect the US? Are you aware of the Lusitania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania) and Pearl Harbor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor)?


without the second world war we would not have near the technological advances we have today. War always gives birth to innovations.

I dispute this. Although WWII accelerated military development, things like nuclear theory were developing independently of the war. Besides, other wars certainly would have had the same accelerating effect, and we're not talking about what would have happened if WWII hadn't happened, we're talking about what would have happened if Germany had won, but WWII still happened.

L.D.Brousse
12-03-12, 19:29
WWI and WWII didn't affect the US? Are you aware of the Lusitania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania) and Pearl Harbor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor)?


Japan is not Germany. The German embassy took out ads warning passengers not to sail on the Lusitania. And dives to the wreck have show it appeared to have carried munitions So I fault my own government for using a civilian ships with passengers to haul war material. Sir I'm more than aware of the wars that The US has fought in. My family has been fighting them since the French and Indian wars myself included

sparkey
12-03-12, 20:08
Japan is not Germany.

Yes, but they were allies of Germany, and there was a mutual declaration of war between the US and Germany in response to the US declaring war on Japan.


The German embassy took out ads warning passengers not to sail on the Lusitania. And dives to the wreck have show it appeared to have carried munitions So I fault my own government for using a civilian ships with passengers to haul war material.

It was more the UK's fault that they were carrying munitions on a civilian ship. Either way, I was showing an example of how WWI most certainly did affect the US, regardless of whether or not the entry of the US into the war was justified. It wasn't for purely selfless reasons that the US joined the war, of course.


Sir I'm more than aware of the wars that The US has fought in. My family has been fighting them since the French and Indian wars myself included

OK, and my family goes back to Bacon's Rebellion, if we're trying to appeal to family history here. Good to know you're up to speed on US military history, that's better than most Americans.