What would the world be like today if Hitler had won?

[plindboe]

I often hear people say that we would all speak German today if we hadn't won in the 2nd world war. How much did Hitler plan to occupy? What did he plan to do with the occupied countries? Maybe someone here has read "Mein kampf" and have an idea on what went on in his mind? Thanks for any replies.

Peter

[a_unique_person]

Like most people, I think Hitler was susceptible to greed. Although his aims at first were relatively modest, his early success drove him on to want more and more. He did, though, also crave acceptance. He would have liked nothing more than to sign a peace treaty with Churchill and act like they were good buddies.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

there wouldn't be breakfast cereal and my toes should connect the beans.

[Lord Emsworth]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
He would have liked nothing more than to sign a peace treaty with Churchill and act like they were good buddies.

Right.

I remember that at some time a goal was something like Germany rules the continents whereas Britannia rules the waves (OK the Mediterranian goes to Italy).

But the whole thing pretty much screwed up over some animosity in the mid '30s between Italy and Britain, where Hitler chose to side with Mussolini.

And yet, the hope for peace, or even an alliance, with GB remained for quite a long time.

Edited to add:
As to what went on in Hitler's mind, I think that he was a first grade kook.

[UnrepentantSinner]

While it's primarily a detective story, here's one authors take on how things might be if an armisitce had been reached.

[Frank Newgent]

And another

[RCNelson]

re: What would the world be like today if Hitler had won?

Like the movie Brazil in some respects.

[peptoabysmal]

Quote:

Originally posted by RCNelson
re: What would the world be like today if Hitler had won?

Like the movie Brazil in some respects.

LOL

I love that movie. Reminds me of my home state, California. I guess the world would be a lot like California. Oh yeah, that is what has been happening, isn't it?

[Jon_in_london]

Should read SS-GB by Len Deighton.

I dont think you can just say what it would be like 'if hitler won'

You have to say HOW hitler won.

Most likely scenario:

Things go badly at Dunkerque- Britain signs a deal with Hitler promising not to fight if the empire is gaurenteed. The US and Britain still fight together, squishing the Japanese.

Both the US and the UK help Hitler against the red peril and Germany ends up dominating Europe. Eventually a massive conflict developes bewteen Germany, and the English-speaking countries and we all die.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Quote:

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
And another

You've just added a book to my currently empty reading list. Thanks.

[Ove]

Quote:

Things go badly at Dunkerque- Britain signs a deal with Hitler promising not to fight if the empire is gaurenteed. The US and Britain still fight together, squishing the Japanese.

Both the US and the UK help Hitler against the red peril and Germany ends up dominating Europe. Eventually a massive conflict developes bewteen Germany, and the English-speaking countries and we all die.

Sounds perfectly plausible considering that Hitler would have had Nukes too in 1945.

Fortunately he was obsessed with his own genius and that brought him down in the end.

[Brian the Snail]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Most likely scenario:

Things go badly at Dunkerque- Britain signs a deal with Hitler promising not to fight if the empire is gaurenteed. The US and Britain still fight together, squishing the Japanese.

Both the US and the UK help Hitler against the red peril and Germany ends up dominating Europe. Eventually a massive conflict developes bewteen Germany, and the English-speaking countries and we all die.

I read a book a little while ago called "More what if's," (I think it's edited by Robert Crowley) which contained a chapter with a very similar scenario to this one. However, in it Britian and the US don't join with Hitler to fight the Soviets, and the Soviets win over Germany and take over most of continental Europe.

The interesting thing is that they also find and take over the German nuke program, while the US doesn't bother with the Manhatten project. So then you have the situation where the USSR is immensely powerful, with atomic bombs, which the US and Britain don't have.

[Jon_in_london]

Quote:

Originally posted by Brian the Snail
However, in it Britian and the US don't join with Hitler to fight the Soviets, and the Soviets win over Germany and take over most of continental Europe.

I think that the US and UK would have been more willing to take on the Bolshies than not.

Its arguable in any case that without the US and UK et al. the Russians wouldnt have been able to win against the Nazis. IMO, at best, they would have been able to reach a non-victors peace accord dividing Poland between them.

[Crossbow]

Quote:

Originally posted by plindboe
I often hear people say that we would all speak German today if we hadn't won in the 2nd world war. How much did Hitler plan to occupy? What did he plan to do with the occupied countries? Maybe someone here has read "Mein kampf" and have an idea on what went on in his mind? Thanks for any replies.

Peter

Well, Germany was already over-extended by the time the USA got involved with the war so I would say that the Germans would still loose the war even if the USA did not get directly involved. However, it would have taken a good bit longer and required quite a bit more blood.

If you want an idea of how places would have looked under Nazi control then I suggest that you study how they acted when they took over a country (France, Belgium, Poland, etc.). Often, secret police, informants, and out right theft was used to get what they wanted. And also, the Germans being the good record keepers they were, wrote detailed, and rather chilling, plans as to what they wanted to do in England after they had invaded (they were planning to do this, but got side-tracked by Eastern Front issues).

Check out the Shirer book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

[Mike B.]

I don't think we will ever know.

However,
According to Mein Kempf, Hitler was not interested in conquering the West. His big goal was leibensrum in the East. He saw the Slavs as undermensch, and not worthy to be anything but slaves to German colonists.

My guess is that he would have probably annexed countries like Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Lux, etc. and formally incoperate them into the Reich rather than just occupying them. Since he would have seen them as sufficently "Nordic" or "Germanic."

I once saw Luftwaffe fighter ace, Galland remembering a conversation with Hitler in 1940 during the Battle of Britian. He said that he told Hitler they could hit London heavy with bombs and Hitler told him to be quiet. Hitler then said, "I do not agree with this attack on the British. They are just too much like us."

I suppose he was referring to the whole Anglo-Saxon thing.

[Brian the Snail]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


I think that the US and UK would have been more willing to take on the Bolshies than not.

Its arguable in any case that without the US and UK et al. the Russians wouldnt have been able to win against the Nazis. IMO, at best, they would have been able to reach a non-victors peace accord dividing Poland between them.

Unfortunately, the book I mentioned didn't really present detailed arguments (this was just one essay in a series of many essays) so I can only guess at what the author's rationale was (and of course, it's all very speculative anyway). I just thought I'd point it out, since it seemed quite close to what you wrote.

But regarding the US/UK taking on the Soviets, I think the point would be that they would be too focused on beating the Japanese, and too unwilling to get into another conflict in Europe to intervene. After all, both countries were awfully reluctant to intervene against the Nazis, and basically did so only when their hand was forced. It's difficult to see how they would have done the same against the Soviets, and I'm not sure that public opinion would have hostile enough to force this either. Remember that a lot of the paranoia against the communists arose later, in the 50s. Before the war the public mood wasn't nearly as hostile. But who knows, perhaps it might have changed in an alternative scenario? Especially in Britian, if after the peace deal there'd been a new government sympathetic with the Nazis, and therefore able to sway public opinion with propaganda.

As for whether without US/UK intervention Russia would have won- again, difficult to say. In reality, the USSR took one hell of a hit (disasterous beginning, 20 million dead) but still kept going until the complete defeat of the Nazis. Without allied intervention, the cost to the Soviets would have surely been even greater, but if you look at battles like Stalingrad, you get the impression that the Soviet leaders were willing to let the people take any losses in order to win, and the people were in no position to argue.

[a_unique_person]

One of the ironies of the war is that if Hitler had noticed that the *undermensch* were throwing flowers at the Germans as liberators when they first rolled in and threw out the communists, he may well have won the war. They would have gladly fought for hitler. Heck if he had won the world war, lebensraum would not have been an issue.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
And another

" The Man in the High Castle " Looks like an incredible read from many different angles..! Thanks for the link..

[Dancing David]

It would be horrible!

Hitler would have killed almost all the Slavs and Poles and then lied about it, there is a rteason that the major death camps were in Poland. He killed seven million non-jewish people in the death camp;s.

[Larspeart]

Hitler desperately wanted England to join forces, or at least stay out of it, not simply for tactical reasons, for because he honestly believed he was doing it all for 'them'; the Anglo's, Saxons, and Nordic people of the world. The people he wanted destroyed or enslaved were those who weren't distinctly 'European'. The deal he worked out with the Japanese and the Italians (and the Spanish to a lesser degree) was one of his many tricks. Eventually, he would have reniged on his deals with them and defeated them as well, because they were part of the 'undermensch' as well. Do you honestly think a xenophobe like Hitler would have shared power with a Sino (the Japanese)? HIGHLY unlikely.

As far as us Yanks, I think he despised the fact that we were 'mixed' as a nation. Too many blacks and poles and jews and chinese, etc, etc for his liking. I also think that he felt he had better odds of swaying the British to see his way then the 'Cowboy Americans'. We've never been one to roll with the changing Empires, plus, there was that blasted ocean to contend with. it is one thing to roll tanks onto someone else's sovereign nation, but quite another to float them over. Hell, it took him years to realize that he wasn't going to make it to Britain, and that old English Channal ain't exactly a huge distance.

As far as development of 'The Bomb' German began ahead of us, but then lost all of their cheif (Jewish) engineers to. . . us. I still feel that at the furthest, Germany would have made it to the Volga in the East, and maybe Ireland in the west. No army, modern or ancient, has been able to tackle the russian winter. Even the mongols knew not to head too far north (where russia wisely keeps its major cities).

[Jon_in_london]

Quote:

Originally posted by Brian the Snail

After all, both countries were awfully reluctant to intervene against the Nazis, and basically did so only when their hand was forced. It's difficult to see how they would have done the same against the Soviets, and I'm not sure that public opinion would have hostile enough to force this either. Remember that a lot of the paranoia against the communists arose later, in the 50s.

I think you forgot what a dim view of bolshevism was taken by our beloved leaders post WWI...

I think a combined US/UK et al. effort against the Japanese would have halted them pretty quickly. Plus I think the Japanese were kind of counting on us being so caught up in a European war that we wouldnt really have much time for them (true in the case of Britain).

Quote:

Originally posted by Brian the Snail

As for whether without US/UK intervention Russia would have won- again, difficult to say. In reality, the USSR took one hell of a hit (disasterous beginning, 20 million dead) but still kept going until the complete defeat of the Nazis. Without allied intervention, the cost to the Soviets would have surely been even greater, but if you look at battles like Stalingrad, you get the impression that the Soviet leaders were willing to let the people take any losses in order to win, and the people were in no position to argue.

There are a lot of things to be taken into consideration here. Bear in mind the men and material that the Nazis devoted to fighting in the west: Production of 1000s of U boats, the Afrika corps, 1000s of 88mm guns firing shells into the German skies instead of into Russian tanks, All the other crap they needed to guard their cities against our bombers, 10,000s of fighters against our bombers instead of producing bombers to kill Russians, The Atlantic Wall etc etc... and dont forgot! The Nazis had 60 divisions stationed in France waiting for D-day. Many of these were crack SS and Panzer divisions. All of this could have been thrown against the Russians.

Bear in mind also the supplies sent to the Russians by us through Arctic convoys and through the middle east.... The Russians would have had to do without all of that lot too!

Now also bear in mind the Allied contribution....and remember the Indian Army alone numbered over 500,000 men by the end of the war. Even Russia has a limit to how much punishment it can take take before it gives the old Hands Up!

[Nyarlathotep]

I am not so sure he COULD have won, but if he did, by some miracle, I am not so sure things would have been all that different today.

Hitler despised naval invasions and had no interest in taking out Britain (he felt that they would come around to his way of thinking, eventually) and likewise had no interest at all in conquering North America (This is only my own personal suspicion, but I suspect he felt the same toward us as he did the British). So the US and the UK likely would have still been around and not under German control.

He would have had to take out Russia, thus he would replace them as the major European power after WWII, and that would basicly meant that all the tensions we had with Russia we likely would have had with Germany. The cold war would have still occured, I think, but we would merely have had a different opponent. The cold war was the biggest thing to shape the world in the post WWII years so while the specifics of this alternate cold war may have been different, I think the 'big picture' would likely have stayed the same.

The big difference, I think, would be in the Middle East. I can not see Isreal forming in a world where Hitler won. Take Isreal out of the picture and I think the whole situation in the Middle East changes. I really couldn't say exactly how things would pan out, but I am positive it would be a very different place, for good or ill.

Of course any alternate history discussion is pure speculation. For all anyone knows, Hitler winning WWII could have meant that WWIII would have been fought in 1951 with nukes leading to WWIV being fought in 1973 with really sharp sticks. It is hard to say with any certainty.

[AlH]

There are numerous possibilities for a change in the outcome of WWII. First, England and France could have backed down with the invasion of Poland and not honored their mutual defence treaty, leaving no war in the west. Dunkerque could have been more of a disaster with the British losing all or most of its men instead of just equipment. Goering could have stood up to Hitler and refused to change targets after Berlin was bombed and continued to hit military, i.e. airfields and radar, instead of switching to terror bombing of London. Stalin could have surrendered when Germany was on the outskirts of Moscow - he was flip-flopping on that. Japan could have attacked Russia instead of the US/UK. Japan could have honestly reported Soviet troop movement away from their borders to the west when the Germans asked them. Hitler could have not declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor, leaving the UK alone as the US became sidetracked with defeating the Japanese. Germany could have altered their Enigma encoding depriving the US/UK of Ultra intercepts for some length of time. Germany could have bypassed Stalingrad and captured the Caucus oil fields. Hitler could have listened to his generals and adopted a more fluid defense in Russia bleeding them even moreso - enough to cause a cease-fire.

The people of Russia could have been treated better, although that would have required a major change in the upper levels of Germany, altering of the SS ideals, etc so seems more unlikely than some of the other possibilities. Just goes to show how badly the Germans treated the people in Russia that they chose to fight for Stalin against Hitler.

The bomb would have taken a major change, Heisenberg, I believe, was working mainly to keep him and friends out of military service, never promising anything in the short term (as in usable in the current war) because he would have to produce, but as a long term - for the next war - project. White Chapel recordings indicate he though he and his associates would be invaluable to the Allies for all of their advanced nuclear knowledge - until Hiroshima. Funding was haphazard with major funding at one time coming from the German post office (for nuclear powered vessels for cheap after-war transportation).

Russia recieved a great deal of help from the US in terms of trucks and radios plus armaments like the Aircobra, the Lee/Grant tank (or coffin for seven brothers as they called it) and enough Sherman tanks to equip several armored divisions. They also got the bazooka where it was captured and copied by the Germans. It was close enough on the Russian front that the loss of such stuff - particularly the radios - could have made the difference between winning and losing. Plus the lack of economic disruption due to US/UK long range bombing.

You could come up with scenarios where the US and Germany are allied fighting the Japanese in mainland China a year or so after the Soviet Union was defeated or Japan never attacks the US and the world's superpowers are the US, the German/European nation and the Japanese/Far East Empire with the British Royal family living in exile in Canada with Australia signing a non-aggression pact with Japan. There is a series of books where aliens land on earth in '42 and screws everything up.

[Brian the Snail]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


I think you forgot what a dim view of bolshevism was taken by our beloved leaders post WWI...

Oh no, I don't doubt that at all. My point was whether public opinion was hostile enough to allow their leaders to intervene. After all, during the war the populace was sympathetic enough to be convinced that a monster like Stalin was actually a lovable "Uncle Joe." But admittedly, a lot of that was the result of propaganda, coupled with the concept that "your enemy's enemy is your friend." Perhaps in the alternative scenario this would have worked the other way, and people would have been referring to "Uncle Adolf". It's a scary thought...

Quote:

I think a combined US/UK et al. effort against the Japanese would have halted them pretty quickly.

Agreed. But I don't think final victory would have come nearly as quickly, if this meant invading Japan's home islands. A lot of the motivation of building the atomic bomb was the idea that Germany had it's own program. Without this motivation, would the allies have developed it? And if they hadn't had atomic bombs to drop, how long would the war with Japan have dragged on for?

Quote:

Plus I think the Japanese were kind of counting on us being so caught up in a European war that we wouldnt really have much time for them (true in the case of Britain).

I think you make a good point. I wonder whether with Britian at peace with Germany, would Japan have attacked the British colonies? Or the the US for that matter? Would there have been a Pearl Harbour?

Quote:

There are a lot of things to be taken into consideration here. Bear in mind the men and material that the Nazis devoted to fighting in the west: Production of 1000s of U boats, the Afrika corps, 1000s of 88mm guns firing shells into the German skies instead of into Russian tanks, All the other crap they needed to guard their cities against our bombers, 10,000s of fighters against our bombers instead of producing bombers to kill Russians, The Atlantic Wall etc etc... and dont forgot! The Nazis had 60 divisions stationed in France waiting for D-day. Many of these were crack SS and Panzer divisions. All of this could have been thrown against the Russians.

Bear in mind also the supplies sent to the Russians by us through Arctic convoys and through the middle east.... The Russians would have had to do without all of that lot too!

Now also bear in mind the Allied contribution....and remember the Indian Army alone numbered over 500,000 men by the end of the war. Even Russia has a limit to how much punishment it can take take before it gives the old Hands Up!

All this makes sense, and IMO that was the weakest part of the scenario contained in the book. No doubt the Germans would have had more of an advantage. But then the Soviets had an incredible amount in reserve- one of the mistakes of Hitler was to underestimate this strength. So, if it had been a straight fight between Germany and the USSR it could well have gone either way, and maybe have ended with a stalement and negotiated peace, like you said.

If the western powers had joined with Germany, then it would be difficult to see the USSR prevailing. And then it would go back to your conclusion. Perhaps with Germany with nukes, and the UK/US without? Again, scary thought...

[LW]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Its arguable in any case that without the US and UK et al. the Russians wouldnt have been able to win against the Nazis.

Well, since we are in the realm of wild guesses anyway, the Soviets of this scenario might have used Tuhatshevski's "Red Packets" defence strategy (delaying action combined with flank counter attacks) and the Germans would have been stopped by August, 1941, at the latest. Both sides would likely have suffered extremely heavy casualties in fighting, and from that on all bets are off. Though, it would have left most of Soviet industrial strength intact so Germans would have faced much, much more severe resistance that they actually did. My guess would be a red flag flying over Reichstags house sometime in 1943.

[Malachi151]

Quote:

Originally posted by plindboe
I often hear people say that we would all speak German today if we hadn't won in the 2nd world war. How much did Hitler plan to occupy? What did he plan to do with the occupied countries? Maybe someone here has read "Mein kampf" and have an idea on what went on in his mind? Thanks for any replies.

Peter

Well, most likely people today woudl think that Hitler was a great leader and savior of the world.

I don't think that he woudl have tried to do anything to America, he never gave any impression that he would have, but what is likely is that Nazi friendly Americnas would have taken power, of which there were plenty, and they did end up taking power anyway and the US would have eventually joined Germany in a war against Communist Russia and probably America, Japan, and Russia would have conquered Russia in a joint invasion before moving on to China to help Chaing Kai Shek take control there.

We would have all joined forces and eleminated Communism back in the 1950s.

Then America, Germany, and Japan would have pretty much a three way domination over the world. Science and engineering would probably be more advanced, euginics would have been implimented so there would be very few genetic diseases today, no Jews on the earth anymore, possibly no blacks in America anymore, and South America would have been conqured by the Germans by the 1960s.

The populations of the world would be well disciplined and strictly controled. Christianity would be an even more dominate religion with a single unified State Church based in Germany that worked like the Vatican with a man like a Pope that would have influence all over the world.

That's pretty much what Hitler had in mind.

[shemp]

Asking such a question is ridiculous. It's like asking "What if Jesus had nuclear weapons?" or "What if dinosuars drove cars?" I declare this thread null, void and moot!

[Nyarlathotep]

Quote:

Originally posted by shemp
Asking such a question is ridiculous. It's like asking "What if Jesus had nuclear weapons?" or "What if dinosuars drove cars?" I declare this thread null, void and moot!

I wouldn't say it has no value. Sometimes engaging in a little "what if?" makes one really think about real history lead to the world as we know it.

[CapelDodger]

What would have happened when Hitler died? He's a god, fair enough, but who's the first High Priest? Could the Nazis have ever created a viable long-term political structure or would Hitler's construction fly apart?

The German Diplomatic Service had a plan for occupied Russia which created a series of puppet-states like Byelorussia, the Ukraine and the Baltic States. There was sufficient anti-Bolshevik and nationalist support in those regions for this to work, and governments were set up, but the Nazi Party and the Wehrmacht undermined them completely by their determined and pointless brutality. The national states that were created ended up being a focus for anti-German attitudes rather than the pro-German attitudes they started with. The Diplomatic Service, of course, represented the old Prussian Germany the Nazis despised so much.

Given that example I don't think the Nazi regime could have survived the death of Hitler. Nazism simply couldn't work. There might have been a period of warlord-rule as the Gauleiters of the Reich went independent followed by a limited democracy in a European Union. Which is where we might end up in reality, by a much less bloody route.

[Nyarlathotep]

Quote:

Originally posted by CapelDodger
What would have happened when Hitler died? He's a god, fair enough, but who's the first High Priest? Could the Nazis have ever created a viable long-term political structure or would Hitler's construction fly apart?

The German Diplomatic Service had a plan for occupied Russia which created a series of puppet-states like Byelorussia, the Ukraine and the Baltic States. There was sufficient anti-Bolshevik and nationalist support in those regions for this to work, and governments were set up, but the Nazi Party and the Wehrmacht undermined them completely by their determined and pointless brutality. The national states that were created ended up being a focus for anti-German attitudes rather than the pro-German attitudes they started with. The Diplomatic Service, of course, represented the old Prussian Germany the Nazis despised so much.

Given that example I don't think the Nazi regime could have survived the death of Hitler. Nazism simply couldn't work. There might have been a period of warlord-rule as the Gauleiters of the Reich went independent followed by a limited democracy in a European Union. Which is where we might end up in reality, by a much less bloody route.

I think it could have survived his death. Look at Russia as an example. Lenin had a similar god-like status and a lot more infighting. Russia survived Lenins death so I suspect that a muchmore united Germany could have survived Hitlers.

[CapelDodger]

From shemp:

Quote:

It's like asking "What if Jesus had nuclear weapons?"

We've all played the "Jesus with a nuke" game, and you may think the subject's all played out, but there's still plenty of territory to be explored there. You'd be surprised at the ideas that six-year-old's come up with when presented with the scenario. Try it sometime outside Sunday School: "What would Jesus do ... if he had a nuke?"

[zakur]

Quote:

Originally posted by shemp
Asking such a question is ridiculous. It's like asking "What if Jesus had nuclear weapons?" or "What if dinosuars drove cars?" I declare this thread null, void and moot!

Wanna have some fun? Post that thought here: soc.history.what-if .

[CapelDodger]

From Nyarlathotep:

Quote:

. Lenin had a similar god-like status and a lot more infighting.

I disagree. Nazism was fundamentally Fuhrer-ist, if you see what I mean, whereas Bolshevism had much more background. The deification of Hitler was unmatched even in Russia. As to the infighting, Hitler deliberately engineered his government so that there was constant bickering over turf. He did this because he was at heart afraid of a serious challenger arising. He appointed Goering as his successor mostly because he had no credibilty.

If you consider the history of neo-Nazism after the war you'll see that it constantly flounders on the question of who is to be the new Fuhrer. Small parties split into smaller parties constantly, always because of personalities. Every now and then they seem to make headway somewhere only to split yet again. The traditional Bollshevist/Stalinist Communist Parties have survived remarkably intact in contrast.

A related "what if" is the question "What if the US stayed out and the Soviets beat the Germans with no Second Front?" Quite feasible as long as the UK stayed in.

[Dragon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


I wouldn't say it has no value. Sometimes engaging in a little "what if?" makes one really think about real history lead to the world as we know it.

Plus, it's fun.

Quote:

Originally posted by CapelDodger


A related "what if" is the question "What if the US stayed out and the Soviets beat the Germans with no Second Front?" Quite feasible as long as the UK stayed in.

Yes, I believe Germany actually declared war first on America after Pearl Harbour - What if they hadn't? Would that have made any difference to US involvement in the European theatre?

[Pyrrho]

If Hitler had won? Judging by what the Nazis did while in power:

All Jewish people would have been killed. All black people would have been killed or enslaved. All mentally ill people -- excepting the dictator and his cronies -- would be routinely killed. All people with non-Nazi-ideal physical traits -- excepting the dictator and his cronies -- would be killed or enslaved, and/or a caste system developed. All people with birth defects would be routinely killed. All elderly people above a certain age would be routinely killed. Art and architecture would follow the sterile Nazi model.

The camp system would have become institutionalized in all nations. Genocides would occur in various parts of the world. Oh, wait, that happpened anyway.

Mass death. Mass misery. The twin legacies of Hitler. We have it even without him. Now doesn't that tell you something?

[ZeeGerman]

Hmm, I think I should throw in my five pence but then I find it hard to speculate about a world in which I wouldn't exist.
Since my mom had to flee from the russians moving west through Poland (she lived her first 14 years in Gdansk - Danzig) in 1945, chances are very low that she would have met my father with Hitler winning the war.

I wonder though what the world would be like if Maria Anna Schicklgruber would only have slipped on the stairs and suffered a miscarriage...

Zee

[Malachi151]

Quote:

Lenin had a similar god-like status and a lot more infighting.

Hitler and Lenin were nothing at all alike. Lenin intentionally kept himself from having total power, he intentionally encouraged democratic practices adn even though he could have taken dictatorial control he purposefully made sure that many people were involved in the political process.

As far as the Nazi go though I'm still quite sure that if the Nazis had won and been successful that modern Nazi society would be happy and the people would consider Hitler to have been the greatest man to have ever lived and the people for the most part would never know about the concentration camps or the mysery of the Jews.

The purging of many intellectuals as they did would have had long term negative impacts though. Nazi society was an amazing thing, amazing in its ability to instill fanatical support and love of the leadership and a fanatically theatrical character. Very ritualistic too, as fanatical things always are.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

More Oktoberfest events!





Oktoberfest!

[shemp]

Quote:

Originally posted by zakur
Wanna have some fun? Post that thought here: soc.history.what-if .

OK, I posted it there, under one of my other nicks, "The Dirty Vicar." I don't think they knew that I was kidding. This is one of the responses I got.

"Assuming Jesus had a tactical nuclear device, as opposed to the strategic ones our GWBush has today, then he might threaten several provinces in the Roman Empire, if not the Empire itself.

Maybe Mary Magdalen does more than attempt to seduce him and someone, prolly Judas, catches him unaware, or while sleeping, and knifes him.

One question, if it was a strategic nuclear weapon, what would be the delivery system and then how or where would Jesus store it, or carry it with him?"

Yeah, if I was Jesus and I had a nuke, my biggest concern would be that Judas would knife me and steal it. Yeah, sure!

[Brian the Snail]

Quote:

Originally posted by shemp
One question, if it was a strategic nuclear weapon, what would be the delivery system and then how or where would Jesus store it, or carry it with him?"

Duh...he'd just go and do and miracle, wouldn't he? I mean, if you can walk on water, turn water into wine, and raise the dead, secretly storing and delivering a 1 megaton nuclear warhead should be easy-peasy.