Would he have tried to conquer anywhere else? He wasn't able to conquer Great Britain, and his military was already being stretched very this, and Hitler would have been aware of this. Would he have stopped where he was and said "Enough?"

And if the answer were "yes", how would it have been for Britain and the USA? The former would have been living right next door to the Third Reich. Would Britain have made a reconciliation pact, for the sake of its own survival?

HAd Germany been able to beat Russia I think England would have had to sign some sort of peace pact with Germany. The US would have little choice but to accept the status quo in Europe/Asia.

Germany would have control of vast amounts of oil and other natural resources. It is posible they would have realized teh Ukraine should be treated as an ally. The potential for a long standing Nazi dominated Europe would have been very good. They might have even been able to get the bomb before the US.

There are so many what ifs for WWII. I my opinion Germany was close to beating Russia, but made some mistakes.

All I can say is thank God they didn't. My mind can't really grasp the concept of anybody conquering, or holding, the USSR, it's just so huge. I also can't believe that Hitler would have ever stopped. If he had beaten the Soviets at most he might have consolidated a bit, then turned someplace else.

After the Blitz I just can't see the British making peace with Germany, even with the fall of the Soviets. Unless the Germans somehow managed to cross the channel the only way they could defeat the British was to starve them out,. If anything this would be even harder with the capture of the Soviets as the British wouldn't have to divert resources to send aid the Russia.

If the Soviets had fallen, and Germany had taken over the entire country, then they would also have been on the doorstep of the US, via Alaska. Would the ego of Hitler have driven him to attack the US directly?

When Britain stood alone in1939-40 Germany had a non aggession pact with Russia the German Blitzkrieg had decimated all her allies and Britain faced invasion as Churchill said our darkest hour Germany was probably at its strongest point.Britain didnt give in no peace deals so why consider it later in the war with a much weakend axis and staunch allies consider also the A bomb the balance well adressed.

Regards to all Phil

Actually Britain wasn't so alone. Long before Pearl Harbor, Britain received financial and material assistance from the USA, although not publicly. Also, the British Empire still existed, and the Royal Navy to support it, for which the Wehrmacht Marine was a threat but not a dire one.

what I find truly frightening about Hitler is that he was not a rational man due to his amphetimine habit, we all know modern day speed freaks are a menace to society, I assume Hitler was so unstable he made many bad military decisions....thank God, is his meth use much discussed on this forum? it seems to have greatly influenced his decisions.

I think Hitler would have gone on to attack the US, there were plans for a extra-long range bomber as far back as 1943 that would have been able to reach almost anywhere on the ConUS (Amerikabomber) and then there was the plane that was to fly almost on the edge of space and do a circuit of the globe in only a few hours, then there is the ballistic missile program that was very advanced for its time plus his A-bomb program which was ahead of the Allies one for some time.

I thought Hitler didn't have an A-bomb program (though the USSR did, whcih they almost abandoned). Also, other than the submarine forces, wasn't the German Navy already too small and weak to go against Britain's? Which would have made actual conquest of the Western Hemisphere next to impossible.

And Hitler was mad (he is known to have heard voices in his head), but he did know what he was doing.

I think had he actually conqured it he would have been nearly impossible to stop. Germany really lacked resources and thast's the only thing keeping them on a leash. I really think it would have then been the whole world after that.

to the best of my knowledge the nazis had no interest in nuke missles however they were interested in nuke subs.

The assistance to Britain from the USA aka lend lease and the finacial aid although welcome was very costly the war debt has just been repaid in 2006 the lend lease programe was agreed by the US in case Britain capitulated and allowed the Axis use of its overseas bases the aid programe was sold to the American people by the then President on the basis of if we give them the materialsand means to defend themselves then as a country we wont get involved.President Roosevelt was re elected on the basis of American non involvement in the war.

Germany had a big interest in nuclear weapons. They were using heavy water to try and make theirs, but that plan was foiled by the British. Then they worked with Uranium, but never made it far enough to be able to make a bomb. One of their wonder weapons was to be a space plane that could deliver a “dirty bomb” to the US. It never made it off the drawing board.

Had Germany beaten Russia and the whole picture of the war changes. Nazi Germany lives on and the US would be in a Cold War with a country with brains, industry, and natural resources to rival ours.

I think they could have, after a rest, regained enough strength to beat England. They could have knocked out the British Navy in the Atlantic and made things really hard on America. By 1944 America would have to decide how to handle both Japan and Germany. I do not think we would be able to put the effort into the Manhattan project like we originally did. Our bomb would eventually come, but at a later date, maybe like in 47. In the Pacific I think we would be at a stand still with Japan. Not wanting to let them take more land but not wanting to go on a direct fight with them. We would have taken back the Aleutian Islands which were taken during the Battle of Midway.

In the Atlantic I think German U-boats would be the Primary weapon of Germany and they would now be freer to roam with Britain out of the war. They could attack shipping along our coast and launch raids against the Panama Canal and hamper our efforts in the Pacific. Germany and Italy would also lock up their lands in Africa and the middle east. Turkey would come to Germany's side as would Syria, Jordon, Iraq, and Iran. India would be England's last great hope. By 1944 Japan would have pretty much cut off Australia from American supplies. New Guinea would have totally fallen.

Germany and the Axis would be in control of Europe, most of Africa, most of Asia, and have a foothold in South America. It is possible Argentina would formally side with Germany. By 1945 Germany would be in a position to actually attack America directly. America and the remaining British forces would be pushed back to North America, Australia, Central Asia, and the Southern Tip of Africa. All our bombers could do would be scratch at Germany, Italy, and Japan.

Our Navy would have to fight in two places at once and not be able to concentrate its forces on Japan like it did before. We would be forced to build our defenses up along the beaches and consider allowing Japan to take over Hawaii. We would also have to protect the Panama Canal and this would require a good deal of forces held in place for this. German bombers could also start to raid North America. By now they would have the long 4 engine bomber they needed to do this. Also they would be sending more commando missions to the US. Italy was well would be using its special forces to attack key targets.

I think by 1947 if Germany had not made a direct invasion attempt and the US did not yet have the bomb, things would settle down into a Cold War.

It would not be a pretty picture if Germany actually beat Russia.

The Germans were in the process of building 'the' bomb early in the war, but due to initial setbacks hitler lost interest in the idea, with the opinion that by the time they had it built the war would be over rendering it useless. Little did he know ey!

Personally I wouldn't take such a pessimistic view of the situation if Hitler had defeated Russia. For starters Hitlers drive on Russia was to create 'living-space' for aryan soldier-farmers to rule over the locals. This plan only extended into european russia, meaning Hitler had little interest in Asian Russia which he designated as being slav-lands. However, having taken Moscow and european russia would he have just stopped? Doubtful I must admitt.

However, by this time North Africa would safely be in allied hands, with the USA firmly in the war after Pearl Harbour and Hitlers declaration of war on the US with his invasion of Russia (a stupid and unnecessary move). This would still give the allies a chance to attack Sicilly and Italy as they did in 1943. While the Italians would not have presented a big problem, the topography of Italy and extra reserves that could be commited would have caused this to be slow going.
There is also nothing to stop the allied landings in Normandy. The Atlantic wall would have been in the same condition, the extra armoured divisions in France would have been the problem, however, this would not have changed the german chain of command that royally stuffed up in mobilizing the panzer divisions on d-day and allowed the allies their beachhead. Progress would then have been slower through france but in my opinion, the war would still have been won as the manhattan project would have initiated (as it was supposed to) with a bomb on Berlin rather than Japan.
Talking of Japan, I don't beleive the war in the east would have changed much with Hitlers rule of Russia. The great industrial might of the USA could provide easily enough armour etc. (think of all those Russian lend lease AFV's going to the pacific instead) along with Australia to keep the war running as it did. The US and Royal Navy did have a hard time of it in the Atlantic, but they eventually defeated the U boat problem which never stopped all supplies getting through.

In my opinion, would german victory over Russia have meant overall victory for them? In my opinion No, people were pretty damn intent on defeating the nazi's, they would have done it eventually, it just would have taken a bit longer and a lot more people would have had to sacrifice our lives.
In fact there could be a bonus to this situation. Without the Russian dominance over eastern europe at the end of the war, there would have been no cold war and opression of these countries. It could be a very different world we live in today.

The real question i'd have is; what if Hitler hadn't changed the target of his bombers from RAF airfields to London during the battle of Britain? (a result of his anger of an RAF raid on Berlin). Estimates put the RAF at surviving for another week or two if the luftwaffe's continued bombing of RAF airfields had taken place. This would have allowed operation sealion (the invasion of Britain) to take place, something (which although I wouldnt like to admitt it), would likely have been a success. Britain was only beginning to appreciate blitzkrieg tactics at this time and British defences and armour was stretched to say the least. If Germany had been victorious over Britain then the USA would have officially been on its own and with no toehold on Europe.

Anyway just a few of my thoughts for ya!

James

I think it's reasonable to say that wars/battles are lost rather than won - look at the decision refered to above re Luftwaffe targets in battle of Britain, the mistakes made by the japanese at Midway, the bad decisions made by the Germans re the Normandy landings.

I do not mean this to take anything away from the brave Men and Women who laid down their lives/risked their lives for their country.

Andy

When British cities were bombed; Bomber Command was unleashed. Suddenly any Axis cities and civilian personnel who were contributing to the German war effort became targets too.

“Blitzkrieg” reversed! The gloves were off.

Jim and James. I just want to say that while you had opposite positions on the topic you both made very good, well thought out, and well written arguments for your positions.

There are so many arguments that can be made for just about any point you want to make about World War II. My whole theory is based on Germany actually having a successful Operation Barbarossa. If they did not knock Russia out of the war on that first offensive, they would have lost no matter what.

If you go back to the Battle of Britain and Germany continues to attack the RAF for lets say another two to three weeks, then they could have possibly won that battle and launched Operation Sealion. The whole set up for Sealion was beating the RAF and being able to take England like they took Norway.

For me I am fascinated by World War II and all of the what ifs that are there. We can sit back and armchair general the war until we are blue in our faces, but the outcome will always still be set in history.

Could Germany had won if Rommel had made it to the Suez canal? What if the Iraqi rebellion against Britain was successful? What if Japan had won at Midway? What would have happened if Franco decided to side with Germany instead of remaining neutral? These all could have happened, but did not.

Thanks Rodger, and Jim I agree, there are a million different outcomes for any part of history, while it is interesting to postulate over them there is nothing we can do, except for perhaps be greatful about how things really turned out. Yes the outcome could have been better, but it could have been so much worse....

James

James,
Yes, we should be thankful it did turn out the way it did.

On one side I admire Germany for being able to do what they did. Taking a bankrupt beaten country and almost winning the largest armed conflict in human history. There were so many innovations during that time frame that we use today and do not even think twice about. Nuclear power, microwaves, RADAR, interstate highways, space travel, and many more. However that time frame also showed the pure evil in peoples hearts. We learned so much during WWII and we also forgot to learn from it. People today still dislike others just because of what they believe in, it is sad.

Thats why places like this are so nice. I lost count how many different countries I have seen on here. But we all are here, share our work, opinions, and seem to get along pretty well. Too bad countries can't do the same.

OK, I will get off my soap box.

This is an interesting "argument". I've always like "what-ifs". So far everyone here has concentrated on Germany defeating Britian & beating up on the US. Here's another interesting thought: what about Sweden & Switzerland? Does anyone here really thing that Hitler would have let two neutral countries exist right in the middle of his Reich? Let's face it, Sweden & Switzerland were neutral during WWII, but they sure as hell didn't like the Nazis.

Edited by moderator for current events topic.

Jim

Germany had plans to invade Switzerland. They knew if they truly wanted to control Europe they would have to control every country. Sweden was pretty much pro Germany and I think would have fallen into the sphere of Germany had they pulled off a victory.

edited by moderator for current event topic

I don't think Hitler would have wanted to say "enough", but he would have had to eventually. We seem to forget the partisan and resistance fighters. I think that Russians would not have calmly submitted to domination. They would have taken every opportunity possible to strike at the Germans. This would have tied up a lot of German forces.

Just my 2 cents.

Has anyone read the book "Fatherland" by Robert Harris? It's a very good book right up this alley. It was writen in 1992, but takes place in 1964. I highly recommend it. The 1994 TV movie sarring Rutger Hauer was pretty good, too.

Now, Nazi facism is a lot different fro Italian facism (at least according to wikipedia). How different woult WWII have been if Germany & Italy were on different sides? When Germany went into Austria in 1934, Great Britian, France & Italy were considering getting together to stop Hitler, and Mussolini moved troops to the Austro-Italian border after the German Brown Shirts assassinated Engelbert Dollfuss on Hitler's orders in preparation for a planned Anschluss. Apparently Dollfuss was pro-Italy & anti-Germany.

If Germany & Italy had gone to war in 1934-1935, I don't think the Wehrmacht would hve had any problem with the Italian army. I mean they conqured France in, what, 6 weeks. They probably could have finished Italy off in three.

As to Hitler stopping? I don't really think so. He was a megalomaniac.

Jim

This is a bit
but a good discussion. I didn't know about the Italians moving troops to the Austro/Italian border. I'm not quite sure it would be the cake walk you say. I'm currently reading The Mighty Endeavor by Charles B McDonald. Granted he mentions that it's a military axiom that "the only way to enter Italy is like any other boot, from the top" but even so he goes into great detail about how rough the terrain is for the attacker. This is after the Italians surrender. It would be even harder with men who are fighting on their own homeland.

Hitler Made two real big Blunders first at start of War,when Generals told him to regroup first winter Nope did not want to hear that.
Second the Battle for Stalingrad where he lost the whole of Army group south after Von Paulus wanted to retreat before the Russians slammed the door closed big times,did not want to hear that after losing about 300,000 troops hard to recover from that.

Imagine today if we took a hit like that.

I don't think we even have 300,000 troops in the US Army and Marines combined.

This is my opinion why he lost and should not of split his force and kept 4th Army whole maybe then Stalingrad would of fallen and after that well Russia would of been open until Siberia.