Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
WW2 ended in 19451. they just completed one of the greatest triumphs ever, and then they will give it all up? no way--humans are not like thatOk, so you gents are confident that, in spite of all of western Europe making peace with the Germans, that the British people would have remained committed to all-out war with Germany. That may be correct, although we'll never know for sure, which is what makes these types of speculative threads interesting.
I think the Brits under Churchill and the other pols were pretty obstinate and had been at this game a long long time. They also weren't stupid about Stalin, but Hitler made them shift their priorities temporarily. They went right back to The Great Game of surrounding Russia with enemies as soon as Germany was finished. Leopards don't change their spots, as the old say8ing goes, and the Russians were always expansionists; becoming 'Reds' didn't change that fundamental fact about them. They still are today as well. All the dictatorships are.
Perhaps but, shortly after the end of the war, the British voters largely opposed Churchill and his fellow conservatives. I maintain my belief that, had Hitler pulled his forces out of western Europe and made peace, the British people would NOT have supported all-out war against Germany. They would rightly ask, why should hundreds of thousands (or millions) of British boys die for Poland? The fact that the conservatives did so poorly in the elections right after the end of WW2 lends credence to my theory, or so I believe.
2. thousands of dead/missing/wounded and Britain will just say ''ok''?
3. Britain went to war over the invasion of Poland--so is hitler getting out of there also? --but Russia is in there also....???!!!
4. Germany had enemy armies on both fronts in Germany/cities destroyed by bombing/etc and they still did not surrender
Japan had most of her major cities bombed to hell with the US taking Okinawa and they still did not surrender
why would Britain give up?
5. upper hand?? they unlawfully went into all of these countries and they are pissed.
....Denmark had a non-aggression pact with Germany!--so, like the Americans were pissed off at Pearl Harbor, the Danes are pissed off at Germany --they want revenge/etc
6. that's not how wars work--you start a war, and don't get your way --like ''let's go back to the way it was'''
For all intents and purposes, Hitler had won the war. It was over. Hitler didn't know how to win the peace after he had won the war. Hitler's delusions knew no bounds. He felt that he could occupy most of Europe and fight Britain, the USSR, the U.S., Canada, along with everyone else.
We can agree to disagree if Britain would have been willing to make peace under the scenario that I provided.
WW2 ended in 1945
....hitler was no different than other leaders--like Pol Pot/Amin/Saddam/Bagosora/etc etc ..but he had an organized/disciplined/industrial/powerful nation to use
but the war wasn't over in 1940WW2 ended in 1945
Correct. Hitler won the war in 1940. It was over. Had Hitler refrained from going to war with the Soviet Union and the U.S., the British would NEVER have been able to dislodge Hitler from France, let alone take Germany. Hitler won - and then he decided to attack the Soviet Union and, only months later, he declared war on the U.S. His fate was essentially sealed at that point.
but the war wasn't over in 1940WW2 ended in 1945
Correct. Hitler won the war in 1940. It was over. Had Hitler refrained from going to war with the Soviet Union and the U.S., the British would NEVER have been able to dislodge Hitler from France, let alone take Germany. Hitler won - and then he decided to attack the Soviet Union and, only months later, he declared war on the U.S. His fate was essentially sealed at that point.
..please read my original post again ....
..and there was resistance all over Europe.....
..there was resistance in Germany itself
..just like the US in Vietnam, the Germans couldn't stay in France forever---the Brits didn't have to dislodge them
...let's give Germany some stealth fighters, while we are at it
1000 years. The European countries situated between Russia and Germany, namely Poland and Slovenian States were ricocheted around competively for one thousand years by Russia for a hundred years, and then by Germany for the next hundred or so. Back and forth; back and forth. Russi and Germany were destined for taking opposite sides.Hitler's dumbest move was to try to take Russia.
If he had maintained his fragile peace with the Soviets, it would have been extremely costly to dislodge them from Western Europe
There's NO WAY they could take Russia. It's too big. Like fighting in Africa, senseless.Hitler's dumbest move was to try to take Russia.
Actually, it was a doable plan. Initially, Operation Barbarossa was a success. Millions of square miles of Soviet territory taken and over a million casualties.
The biggest failure was lack of strategic planning for a long campaign. The successes of Poland and France made the Germans overconfident that the campaign would be short.
The Russian winters did them in. They had no chance against the natives.There's NO WAY they could take Russia. It's too big. Like fighting in Africa, senseless.Hitler's dumbest move was to try to take Russia.
Actually, it was a doable plan. Initially, Operation Barbarossa was a success. Millions of square miles of Soviet territory taken and over a million casualties.
The biggest failure was lack of strategic planning for a long campaign. The successes of Poland and France made the Germans overconfident that the campaign would be short.
Yes, they could have; despite the fashionable myths, the Soviets were indeed at their last stand and faced near total destruction. The further-est east left to them to retreat to was around a 100 miles, not 'thousands;. They weren't going to walk to Siberia, nor would they survive there without taking lots of stuff with them, which they didn't have the means to carry. The remaining industrial cities were in easy reach of Moscow and Stalingrad and the railroad networks connecting them.
The Russian winters did them in. They had no chance against the natives.There's NO WAY they could take Russia. It's too big. Like fighting in Africa, senseless.Hitler's dumbest move was to try to take Russia.
Actually, it was a doable plan. Initially, Operation Barbarossa was a success. Millions of square miles of Soviet territory taken and over a million casualties.
The biggest failure was lack of strategic planning for a long campaign. The successes of Poland and France made the Germans overconfident that the campaign would be short.
Yes, they could have; despite the fashionable myths, the Soviets were indeed at their last stand and faced near total destruction. The further-est east left to them to retreat to was around a 100 miles, not 'thousands;. They weren't going to walk to Siberia, nor would they survive there without taking lots of stuff with them, which they didn't have the means to carry. The remaining industrial cities were in easy reach of Moscow and Stalingrad and the railroad networks connecting them.
After the Germans took France, the Germans quickly seized France's tanks, artillery, rifles, ammunition, aircraft, and huge stores of oil. In other words, they disarmed the French army and "air force". The French Navy was left untouched.
Here's what I posit that Hitler could have done differently that would have resulted in peace with Britain. Leave. Yep, leave France. Leave Norway. Leave Denmark, the Netherlands and, Belgium. Hitler could have told the British, French, Norwegians, etc., that he never wanted war with the west and that he has no territorial ambitions against them nor their colonies. He could (and did) disarm their militaries, destroy their defenses and then leave.
The British would have lost the moral upper-hand. Their European allies would NOT have wanted to go to battle again against the Nazis. The pressure in England for the British to end the war would have been IMMENSE. Besides, without the permission of western, European nations to enter their air space, coastal areas, etc., I don't know how the British could have waged war against Germany.
And if it had been successful, there would have been no "Battle of Britain". Hitler would not have had to fear a British entry into Greece, which resulted in the Germans going into Greece (after Mussolini's inept army failed) which delayed his attack on the Soviet Union.
As well, look at the immense losses the Germans suffered in the Battle of Britain not only in terms of aircraft but, more importantly, good pilots. Imagine that the Germans did not need huge numbers of forces tied up occupying France and the rest of western Europe.
Imagine the Germans not having to contend with a daily barrage of British and then, British & American bombers (this assumes that Germany does NOT declare war on the U.S.).
Of course, one impediment to all of this is that Hitler was apparently obsessed with deporting Jews from France, Belgium, etc., and exterminating them. Would Hitler have given up on that endeavor in return for all of the above? And what would the west have done once they learned (eventually) what Hitler was doing to the German, Polish, and Jews from the Soviet Union? Then again, if the U.S. chose to remain isolated, what could they have done?
With all that said, I still don't believe that the Germans could have taken and kept the great territories in Ukraine that Hitler fantasized about settling with German farmers. The war may have lasted years beyond 1945 but, ultimately, the Soviet Union's vast resource of manpower would have been too much for the Germans to overcome and the outcome would have been the same, albeit a few years later, perhaps.
Thoughts?
On another note, after taking the sudetenland (which was mostly German), Hitler could have gone full free-market capitalism and the Germans would have built great cars, planes, medicines, etc. and the world would have flooded with Germans with money to buy those goods. Hitler could have helped with the creation of Israel and relocated Jews there (instead of murdering them), returned the nation to a democratic system and there would be statues to Hitler in Germany today. But, Hitler was a demonically-possessed, hateful, crazy, megalomaniac with a blood-lust. What are you gonna do?
Actually, dummy, the winter was only part of it. Their supply lines were stretched thin and the Soviet scorched earth policy meant the only resupply they had was from their stretched thin supply lines. Not to mention their invasion force was not big enough to take on the bear.The Russian winters did them in. They had no chance against the natives.There's NO WAY they could take Russia. It's too big. Like fighting in Africa, senseless.Hitler's dumbest move was to try to take Russia.
Actually, it was a doable plan. Initially, Operation Barbarossa was a success. Millions of square miles of Soviet territory taken and over a million casualties.
The biggest failure was lack of strategic planning for a long campaign. The successes of Poland and France made the Germans overconfident that the campaign would be short.
Yes, they could have; despite the fashionable myths, the Soviets were indeed at their last stand and faced near total destruction. The further-est east left to them to retreat to was around a 100 miles, not 'thousands;. They weren't going to walk to Siberia, nor would they survive there without taking lots of stuff with them, which they didn't have the means to carry. The remaining industrial cities were in easy reach of Moscow and Stalingrad and the railroad networks connecting them.
The Russians beat the Germans. The US helped a little.The funny thing is, the Germans had very little knowledge of the U.S. They looked down on us, of course. It's amazing how ignorant they were of America's potential capabilities, which dwarfed theirs. Considering the U.S. was the final piece that broke the Germans in the first world, one would think that the Germans would have had a better grasp on reality the second time around but...
He offered Churchill very nice terms
Not correct. Do you think US promises mean anything? Lol.He offered Churchill very nice terms
History made it pretty clear that Herr Hitler's 'promises' promise absolutely nothing.
There is no way Britain as we know it would have survived a treaty with Hitler.
Not correct. Do you think US promises mean anything? Lol.He offered Churchill very nice terms
History made it pretty clear that Herr Hitler's 'promises' promise absolutely nothing.
There is no way Britain as we know it would have survived a treaty with Hitler.
