How Nazi Germany could have won WWII

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

An invasion of Britain that failed could have had a huge effect on the war. Hitler would have suffered a big defeat early and Britian would have had a huge boost in morale ... Plans for the invasion of Russia would have taken a big knock as German resources would have been lost.

It has been suggested that Stalin expected to have to fight Germany in 1942, and would have been ready for any German invasion by then. If German intelligence had become aware of this, the invasion might have been cancelled altogether, assuming Hitler could have been persuaded to see reason.

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Craig B

It has been suggested that Stalin expected to have to fight Germany in 1942, and would have been ready for any German invasion by then. If German intelligence had become aware of this, the invasion might have been cancelled altogether, assuming Hitler could have been persuaded to see reason.

Does it count as an answer to the question posed by this thread that we come up with a scenario in which a peace is negotiated before things went global? Could Germany be said to have won WW2 or just a small local European war?

Say after knocking out France Hitler could have said, 'OK, we'll give it (France) back provided France limits its army, pays reparations and Germany's historical frontiers (including Austria, Czechoslovakia, half of Poland, Alsace - Lorraine etc.) are recognised'. Would the Allies have gone for that? The French maybe, but the Brits?

Would that have been an end to hostilities or just a truce? How was poor old Adolf to know when German power had reached its zenith? It had knocked down every obstacle and carried right on doing so until the end of 1941 so it's not difficult to imagine him regrouping and then discovering some new corner of Europe that properly belonged to the Reich.

ETA Schleswig-Holstein, forgot that one.

[Craig B]

@anglolawyer

You're in good and wise company, forgetting Schleswig-Holstein. You may recall Palmerston's famous quip on this thorny topic:

Quote:

Only three people...have ever really understood the Schleswig-Holstein business—the Prince Consort, who is dead—a German professor, who has gone mad—and I, who have forgotten all about it.

But the rest of your post is so interesting that it deserves a considered reply, which I will start work on now.

[Tolls]

Originally Posted by Craig B

It has been suggested that Stalin expected to have to fight Germany in 1942, and would have been ready for any German invasion by then. If German intelligence had become aware of this, the invasion might have been cancelled altogether, assuming Hitler could have been persuaded to see reason.

I've read several times about the Germans invading at just about the worst time, as far as the Soviet restructuring was concerned.

The Soviet forces were in the midst of restructuring after the Finnish war, and also still hadn't entirely sorted out their defence system with the new (post-Poland) frontier. Another year and they would, indeed, have been in a better position.

I doubt the German intelligence service was aware of this, though. They strike me as having been aware of very little during the war.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Tolls

I doubt the German intelligence service was aware of this, though. They strike me as having been aware of very little during the war.

It is often noted that potential victims of aggression assign great importance to intelligence, but that aggressor states value it less. Hitler knew what he intended to do to Poland. Invade it. The Poles knew what they wanted to do to Germany. Nothing. So the Poles needed to know German intentions, while Hitler had no need to know Polish intentions, for they had none that might have disquieted him.

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Craig B

@anglolawyer

You're in good and wise company, forgetting Schleswig-Holstein. You may recall Palmerston's famous quip on this thorny topic:

But the rest of your post is so interesting that it deserves a considered reply, which I will start work on now.

Like Palmerston, I had forgotten that one too

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Originally Posted by Craig B

It is often noted that potential victims of aggression assign great importance to intelligence, but that aggressor states value it less. Hitler knew what he intended to do to Poland. Invade it. The Poles knew what they wanted to do to Germany. Nothing. So the Poles needed to know German intentions, while Hitler had no need to know Polish intentions, for they had none that might have disquieted him.

What about Canaris' alleged treachery?

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

It had knocked down every obstacle and carried right on doing so until the end of 1941 so it's not difficult to imagine him regrouping and then discovering some new corner of Europe that properly belonged to the Reich.

The Japanese had a name for that. They called it "victory disease". When everything keeps going right, one gets conditioned to think it'll always go right.

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

The Japanese had a name for that. They called it "victory disease". When everything keeps going right, one gets conditioned to think it'll always go right.

Didn't know that. It's always good to find there is a name for something. The Japanese may have suffered from it after Pearl Harbour. They got cured at Midway.

[nudger1964]

wasnt the whole German economic miracle reliant on significant land grab in the east, and never bothering to pay off its debts, at least so far as Hitler was concerned?
Hard to see how an early peace would have led to the prosperous germany Hitler wanted

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

The Japanese had a name for that. They called it "victory disease". When everything keeps going right, one gets conditioned to think it'll always go right.

Victory was a bit of a shock for them after failing to beat the ramshackle Chinese military establishments for four years.

[StankApe]

Originally Posted by Craig B

It is often noted that potential victims of aggression assign great importance to intelligence, but that aggressor states value it less. Hitler knew what he intended to do to Poland. Invade it. The Poles knew what they wanted to do to Germany. Nothing. So the Poles needed to know German intentions, while Hitler had no need to know Polish intentions, for they had none that might have disquieted him.

I agree (concerning Poland) as even if they were on RED ALERT! they didn't pose much of a threat towards Germany. I think that there are other states that Hitler would have been a bit more concerned about (hence the massive amount of agents in Britain).

Concept is generally pretty sound tho, if you know you are going to attack, and know you are probably going to win. What's intelligence gonna gain you? (except maybe some small trophy goals like capturing specific political targets)

[TheShadow]

Wow, its really cool to see so many people interested in WW2 history, and especially this "what if" type of topic. I say that as someone who's spent a fair share of time contemplating this very subject.

I would have loved to dive in earlier, but my internet's been off for almost 5 days now, due to "Sandy" coming through.

To me, its not so much about how Germany/Hitler could have "won" WW2, but more about how greed and arrogance kept him from slowly building Germany into a formidable world power, one that might have rivaled the Soviets, or the United States today.

To me, when I look at what Hitler was able to achieve early on, both politically within Germany, and then initially militarily, I am sometimes dumbstruck at the sheer apparent lunacy of some of his decisions.

Some of his earliest goals, which he did achieve, were to re-unite Germany and Austria, to retake the Sudetenland regions back, and also the Alsace-Lorraine region from France.
This along with his invasion of Poland, that started on September 1st of 1939, yielded them basically half of Poland, which they split with the Soviets.

These gains alone, should have been enough- as it reversed what Hitler and many German's felt was an embarassment resulting from the end of WW1.

But it wasnt enough. Even if you take into consideration that at one point after having conqured Belgium, and France, and throwing the British forces back at Dunkirk, and knowing of the past hatred between the French and the British, there's a good chance he could have brokered some kind of peace, and held onto his gains. The same goes on the Eastern front. He had started the war with a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union, which he later violated.

They had more than doubled the geographical size of Germany, built a formidable military and air force, and at early stages still even had quite a few sympathisers and supporters here in the United States.

Hitler squandered this, seeing in his own mind some kind of World conquering German empire, that would have rivaled the Roman Empire of antiquity.

Power, greed, and supreme arrogance were his undoing, as far as I'm concerned.
He just simply didnt know when enough was enough, and he and his regime could have spent the rest of their day's enjoying the spoils of war, and the World map today might look quite different if he'd done it in stages, instead of going for broke in one giant war.

A smarter, more coniving, but no less evil man might have seen a different path than the one's he chose, but as with many other men, and many instances in life, he let emotion and hatred rule his actions, and he squandered his chance to rule an albeit smaller empire.

Obviously, as some/a few mentioned above, was his tendency to take over direct control of his armies, and to not trust, and not allow his generals to make the decisions that may have yielded him victories, or if not, surely would have preserved and protected the German homeland from invasion for much longer, if not indefinitely.

It's also something to consider, that if it werent for his hatred of Jews, and his plans to rid Germany of them (one way or another), some of his best scientists might not have fled the country before the outbreak of war, and it might have been Germany that wound up with nuclear capabilities long before the United States.
That would have certainly been a game changer, and would have most definitely changed the outcome of the war.

It all started with the mind of a twisted hate filled man, bent on revenge, who lacked the ability to see that he had achieved many of his goals, and it just wasnt enough for him. If you've ever read "Mein Kampf", or even parts of it (i gave up about 1/2 way through), you can see how and why he would never be happy with just a little victory. It had to be all or nothing, and in the end, even with the horrific loss of life that resulted, it's probably a good thing that he did go all out, and force the other powers to deal with him in one great war, instead of having him play "chess" with Europe as the game board for 30 or 40 years.


Keeping in mind, of how destructive and cruel they were, I've watched many films on youtube, and other documentaries, and seen them when they were at their peak, when they were at their most poweful, and I've always been struck by or questioned in my own mind, why that wasnt enough, why they had to push so much farther? They had it all. Power, money, women, the best foods, the best wines, the adoration of their people, and on and on.

I guess when some men achieve that type and amount of power, it goes to their heads, and they truly believe that they're invincible, and that its impossible for them to fail.

I wonder if any of that ever ran through his head, as he sat in his bunker, listening to the Russian's artillery and troops coming ever closer, and into Berlin. True to the end, he blamed it on the incompetence and failure of his generals, and the German people themselves.

He could have been so much more, but turned out to be far less than he ever seemed.

-TS-

[StankApe]

I'm not sure Hitler would have even made it into power without his anti-Jew rhetoric though.

To get a downtrodden people to push you into power you need 3 things:

ideas that promise that only you can lead the people to a new and better future- CHECK

the charisma to express your ideas (no matter how insane) in such a matter as to build their trust and admiration- CHECK

a scapegoat on which to blame the present day ills upon- DA JOOZ

[anglolawyer]

@The Shadow

I read your post and in true JREF style with a view to taking a pop at some footling point or other but didn't find anything to viciously attack. That's a pretty good summary. Well done.

[Gawdzilla]

Question: Do you think the Nazi would have ever gained power if Erich Ludendorff had died in 1922? (What-iffing, so speculation is allowed.)

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

Question: Do you think the Nazi would have ever gained power if Erich Ludendorff had died in 1922? (What-iffing, so speculation is allowed.)

Ludendorff later turned against Hitler. According to wiki:

Quote:

After 1928, Ludendorff went into retirement, having fallen out with the Nazi party. He no longer approved of Hitler and began to regard him as just another manipulative politician, and perhaps worse. On the occasion of Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor by President Hindenburg, Ludendorff told him, “I solemnly prophesy that this accursed man will cast our Reich into the abyss and bring our nation to inconceivable misery. Future generations will damn you [Hindenburg] in your grave for what you have done.”

So was Ludendorff's post-Beerhall Putsch career a net contribution to Hitler's rise to power?

[Gawdzilla]

Not where I'm going with that. Without Ludendorff, would the Nazis have been anything more than just another of the endless number of parties in Germany at the time?

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by StankApe

I agree (concerning Poland) as even if they were on RED ALERT! they didn't pose much of a threat towards Germany. I think that there are other states that Hitler would have been a bit more concerned about (hence the massive amount of agents in Britain).

Concept is generally pretty sound tho, if you know you are going to attack, and know you are probably going to win. What's intelligence gonna gain you? (except maybe some small trophy goals like capturing specific political targets)

Well that depends on what you mean by a "threat towards Germany". Offensively no, no really, but defensively the Poles could have stopped the German attack.

There are a lot of myths about the Polish campaign, cavalry charging tanks for example, that contribute to the "Poland as a speed bump" image.
Actually the Poles had about 200 reasonable capable tanks with 37mm guns and about 500 tankettes; they were also receiving deliveries of French R35 tanks when the war began. The Polish air force, which had been competitive with most European air forces up to ~1935, but problems with their small design team meant they were over-matched by 1939. Even so they shot down 120-160 German aircraft.
Polish problems were, however, multiple:

• code breaking: up to the summer of 1939 the Poles were reading German military codes; however changes to the Enigma apparatus deprived them of this intelligence at the worst time
• poor communications: this was a general problem but the General Staff's move from Warsaw effectively cut them off from their forces
• German control of the air: reconnaissance and close support
• delay in mobilising: mostly due to French/British pressure only one quarter of the Polish army was mobilised before the German offensive
• fighting too far forward:
• weather: late rains in 1939 meant that German mechanised forces could operate later than the Poles expected
• lack of Allied intervention: the British and French response was minimal

[Craig B]

@catsmate1

I'm not suggesting that Polish military strength was negligible or that the Poles were not skilled and stubborn fighters. I'm just observing that they had no intention of invading Germany in 1939, while for his part Hitler had resolved to put an end to Poland, as a creation of the hated Treaty of Versailles.

ETA The highly-developed Polish skill in breaking German and Soviet ciphers is a reflection of the importance Poland attached to intelligence, surrounded as it was by much larger and potentially aggressive Powers.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

Does it count as an answer to the question posed by this thread that we come up with a scenario in which a peace is negotiated before things went global? Could Germany be said to have won WW2 or just a small local European war?

If that restriction is placed on the interpretation of the subject of the thread, then it has only one response. Germany could not win a war in which the Soviet Union, the USA, and the resources of the British and French empires were ranged against it. If the UK had succumbed, its colonies would simply have been taken over by the USA. According to some commentators, that more or less happened anyway.

Hitler didn't intend a global war, of course. He seems to have convinced himself that the USSR would collapse politically in the event of a serious initial defeat - as rich and mighty France had just done - and that his army would therefore not be required to engage in a protracted war of attrition against a ruthless régime disposing of the population and resources of a continent. Germany did not prevail in such a war, and never could have done.

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Craig B

If that restriction is placed on the interpretation of the subject of the thread, then it has only one response. Germany could not win a war in which the Soviet Union, the USA, and the resources of the British and French empires were ranged against it. If the UK had succumbed, its colonies would simply have been taken over by the USA. According to some commentators, that more or less happened anyway.

Hitler didn't intend a global war, of course. He seems to have convinced himself that the USSR would collapse politically in the event of a serious initial defeat - as rich and mighty France had just done - and that his army would therefore not be required to engage in a protracted war of attrition against a ruthless régime disposing of the population and resources of a continent. Germany did not prevail in such a war, and never could have done.

Maybe we should amend the thread title to: could Germany have done anything better leading up to and/or in the course of WW2? In that case, everyone else should be allowed to do things better too. So, France should have developed its own doctrine of blitzkrieg and marched straight into Germany while they were off somewheres else marching into Poland (or Czechoslovakia or the Rhineland or whatever) and the Brits should have bestirred themselves earlier too.

Seriously, we can't get too far from reality. It does seem valid to find ways Germany might have avoided conflict with the US, especially as there was no popular appetite for war there. Then it might have had a chance of establishing some kind of durable continental hegemony, maybe. It's hard to disagree though that taking on the combined might of the emergent superpowers was not one of Adolf's brightest ideas. But then he seems to have really believed his own BS (the master race, destined to rule etc) so it was all quite logical really.

[anglolawyer]

How about choosing better allies? I mean, Italy? Come on. And even tying yourself up with the Japs may have had a downside (er, war with the US for instance). Maybe he should have teamed up with France against us, or with us against France (we'd vote for that!) or with us and France against the commie bastards (we'd have voted for that too). Only joking.

[Craig B]

@anglolawyer

Quote:

It does seem valid to find ways Germany might have avoided conflict with the US, especially as there was no popular appetite for war there.

One good way would have been not to declare war on the USA. The terms of Germany's alliance with Japan did not require that. However, and this is the point: Hitler observed that the USA was assisting the Allies economically and materially, so that to all intents and purposes Germany and the USA were at war already, he believed.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Craig B

@catsmate1

I'm not suggesting that Polish military strength was negligible or that the Poles were not skilled and stubborn fighters. I'm just observing that they had no intention of invading Germany in 1939, while for his part Hitler had resolved to put an end to Poland, as a creation of the hated Treaty of Versailles.

ETA The highly-developed Polish skill in breaking German and Soviet ciphers is a reflection of the importance Poland attached to intelligence, surrounded as it was by much larger and potentially aggressive Powers.

Ah, sorry my bad. I seem to be mis-reading people a bit at the moment. Blame the medication.
You're right, Poland and Germany were planning for different wars; Poland to survive, Germany to conquer.
And you're also right about the intelligence; this seems a characteristic of small countries with significant nearby enemies.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

How about choosing better allies? I mean, Italy? Come on. And even tying yourself up with the Japs may have had a downside (er, war with the US for instance). Maybe he should have teamed up with France against us, or with us against France (we'd vote for that!) or with us and France against the commie bastards (we'd have voted for that too). Only joking.

I'd think that the UK would have to go Fascist in the 30s for that to be viable. Perhaps a Mosley coup during the Abdication Crisis?

Originally Posted by Craig B

@anglolawyer

One good way would have been not to declare war on the USA. The terms of Germany's alliance with Japan did not require that. However, and this is the point: Hitler observed that the USA was assisting the Allies economically and materially, so that to all intents and purposes Germany and the USA were at war already, he believed.

Dale Cozort (a member here) has a lengthy scenario about this. It also, IIRC, is part of the plot of the mediocre novel 1945.

Originally Posted by Dale R. Cozort

Instead of getting caught on the ground, the US airforce launches a heavy raid on Japanese airbases on the Philippines. As in our time-line, the Japanese have not been able to take off yet for their intended raid on the Philippines because of ground fog. The US raid is moderately successful. It destroys 20 to 25 Japanese warplanes on the ground, damages a few more, kills some pilots in their planes, and causes enough damage to the bases to delay any immediate Japanese counter-attack.

US pilots think they've done a lot more damage than they have, and their reports are further exaggerated by the Roosevelt administration, which bills their attack as payback for Pearl Harbor. Hitler isn't so much fooled by the US account of the attack as made more cautious by them. It brings back memories of the pre-war expectations of Italian military performance, and mixes with his racism to create enough doubt as to whether or not the "little yellow men" can take on a real Great Power that he decides to await further developments--to see if the Japanese are capable of taking on the US.

During the over two years between the start of the war and Pearl Harbor, Hitler had been very careful to avoid any incident that would allow Roosevelt to get the US into the war. He wasn't totally unaware of the potential power of the US, though he did underestimate the amount of time it would take for that power to be mobilized. As December 1941 wears on Hitler becomes aware of the scope of the Soviet winter offensive. He also becomes upset because the Japanese didn't warn him that the Soviets were pulling large numbers of experienced divisions out of the Soviet Far East for that Soviet winter offensive, even though the Japanese knew it was happening. As December goes on, Hitler decides that any war with the US should wait until the crisis on the eastern front has eased, and until the Japanese have done more to prove themselves against the US.

The US also becomes more anxious to avoid war with Germany as December goes on. Roosevelt still considers Germany the main enemy, but the Japanese are proving unexpectedly strong, and fighting the Germans at the same time doesn't seem like as great of an idea as it did before the fighting with Japan started. The US becomes a little less aggressive in the Atlantic, at least for a few months. That makes the issue of war with the United States a little less pressing for Hitler.

So the Germans and Italians decide to wait a while before declaring war on the US. The consequences of that are on balance very negative for the Axis through about the middle of 1942. After that the balance of consequences may swing toward the Axis, depending on how much advantage the US takes advantage of their enhanced opportunities in the Pacific.

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

How about choosing better allies? I mean, Italy? Come on. And even tying yourself up with the Japs may have had a downside (er, war with the US for instance). Maybe he should have teamed up with France against us, or with us against France (we'd vote for that!) or with us and France against the commie bastards (we'd have voted for that too). Only joking.

I'd think that the UK would have to go Fascist in the 30s for that to be viable. Perhaps a Mosley coup during the Abdication Crisis?

You're right. It's just darned hard to get a decent coup going here. No one has any imagination!

[Captain_Swoop]

Quote:

During the over two years between the start of the war and Pearl Harbor, Hitler had been very careful to avoid any incident that would allow Roosevelt to get the US into the war.

So he would have stopped U-Boats operating against any ships escorted by US warships and also stopped them operating off the East coast of the USA? That would have been a very big gift to the British. By 1941 the US Navy had already been in action against U-Boats and had a warship sunk.

Even if the US hadn't joined the war in 1941 they were helping GB with convoy escort and shipping not to mention Lend Lease.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

So he would have stopped U-Boats operating against any ships escorted by US warships and also stopped them operating off the East coast of the USA? That would have been a very big gift to the British. By 1941 the US Navy had already been in action against U-Boats and had a warship sunk.

Even if the US hadn't joined the war in 1941 they were helping GB with convoy escort and shipping not to mention Lend Lease.

And Roosevelt would just have kept right on turning the screw until Germany either declared war or gave him a casus belli.

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

How about choosing better allies? I mean, Italy? Come on. And even tying yourself up with the Japs may have had a downside (er, war with the US for instance). Maybe he should have teamed up with France against us, or with us against France (we'd vote for that!) or with us and France against the commie bastards (we'd have voted for that too). Only joking.

It would have made more sense for Hitler to have actually attempted to achieve a common policy with his allies.

Of course being Hitler, he just did what he liked and presented it as a fait acompli to his allies. This grated Mussolini's carrots no end which is why Mussolini then tried to go around invading places without telling his allies.

Difference of course is the Germans were very good at war. The Italians were not.

[Debaser]

It seems we've got a bit of a downer on 'The Greatest Generation' insofar as the British contingent is concerned.

Either ready to make peace with a warmonger at the drop of a hat (presumably because we were relying on the doddery old fools in the LDV to protect the nation), or to go fascist in the thirties.

Let's look at the other side. In late '39, conscription was for males up to 41 years of age. That basically left men who would have been 19 or older in 1918. Veterans. Men who had faced up to the horror of industrial warfare and who also knew what the 'Hun' had done to Belgian civilians who got on their 'wrong side', and who would probably do the same to their families if they got a hold of any part of the country. They might not have been the best equipped at the start, but to think this was a bunch of elderly Godfreys and Jones' is, I think, to vastly underestimate them. (I believe even Jimmy Perry has expressed a certain regret that this portrayal is the one that everyone thinks of first when hearing the words 'Home Guard').

Then there's appeasement. Or this desperate desire for peace at all costs which is supposed to have gripped the nation. Of course, the attitudes of the newspapers and of the great and the good are on record, however, how often do we here about the opinions of the people at large? A few years ago, as part of a larger celebration of the 'BBC in the North' there was a documentary which included what was thought to be some of the earliest vox-pops carried out by BBC radio. It contained interviews with yer actual ordinary men and women in the street and their opinions on this Mr. Hitler chappy and his recent invasion of Czechoslovakia. Rather than a fight in a far away place between people about which they knew little, to a man (and woman) IIRC the unanimous opinion of these otherwise unheard members of the public was that "he should be stopped now before he goes further" and that we had given our word but sold them (the Czechs) out. Needless to say, these interviews were apparently not broadcast at the time. Good old Auntie.

Now, this doesn't mean a government led by Lord Halifax would be brought down by popular revolution within a week, by a people desperate to wage war, but we shouldn't just trust that the likes of the Mail were simply following public opinion rather than trying to form it.

[Captain_Swoop]

There was more to the 'Home Guard' or 'LDV' as it was first called than old men.

There was a huge number of men in 'Reserved Occupations' exempt from military service or had been conscripted to work in trhe Coal Mines. they were armed and trained to fight as a defensive force and when the equipment started to come through they were very effective and well trained.
Plus although we like to think we 'Stood Alone' we had the resources of a huge Empire behind us and the support of the Colonies of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

There was more to the 'Home Guard' or 'LDV' as it was first called than old men.
...
Plus although we like to think we 'Stood Alone' we had the resources of a huge Empire behind us and the support of the Colonies of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa.

Very true, although I think the countries you list should be called Dominions rather than colonies. But the colonies in tropical Africa and the West Indies were important too, as sources of supply and manpower. India provided a huge number of effective soldiers and workers. France and the Netherlands, though occupied, were significant colonial powers as well.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Craig B

Very true, although I think the countries you list should be called Dominions rather than colonies.

Canada proved to be irritating to the 'old country' at times in that it was rather insistent on organizing its aircrew and personnel into their own RCAF squadrons rather than having them dispersed throughout the RAF.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Canada proved to be irritating to the 'old country' at times ...

And vice-versa. Dieppe!

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by Craig B

And vice-versa. Dieppe!

Gallipoli.

[UnrepentantSinner]

If anti-Semitism hadn't been an integral part of Nazism, I think the results of WWII in Europe would have been very different.

[NWO Sentryman]

In response to the OP:

The USA would just build up dozens of B-36s and nuclear warheads and when the Nazis decide to go in the running for a Darwin Award, the USA would be happy to oblige.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

In response to the OP:

The USA would just build up dozens of B-36s and nuclear warheads and when the Nazis decide to go in the running for a Darwin Award, the USA would be happy to oblige.

Yes. This "award" would have been received by millions of non-Nazi, indeed noncombatant, Germans, and shared very widely with Germany's neighbours, including occupied and neutral states.

[NWO Sentryman]

Originally Posted by Craig B

Yes. This "award" would have been received by millions of non-Nazi, indeed noncombatant, Germans, and shared very widely with Germany's neighbours, including occupied and neutral states.

I'm just sick of how people think that the Nazis could have somehow been able to win World War 2 when the odds were clearly against them. Even if the Nazis made "fatherland" level gains, the USA would still decide to nuke em.