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.
Do you like historical "what ifs?" Here's mine.
Hitler took his eye off the ultimate prize, conquering the Soviet Union. Hitler needlessly and detrimentally went to war with Britain.
Upon taking France, Hitler should have disarmed the French (as they did), dismantled the Maginot Line and then announced that it was unilaterally withdrawing from France and state that they never wanted war with the allies and that their territorial claims in Poland were just. The French would have retained their navy (as they did anyway) and their colonies. I'm confident that the French would have readily accepted such generous terms from the Germans.
Hitler would have refrained from invading Denmark, Norway and north Africa while also refraining from any attacks against the U.K. Politically speaking, Churchill would have had virtually nill support for engaging in war against the Germans considering that the French were out of the war and at peace with Germany and considering that the Germans were not taking any aggressive actions against the U.K.
Hitler also would have needed to NOT declare war on the U.S., as he was apparently bound by agreement with Japan to do.
Had Hitler done these things, Germany would not have been at war with the western allies. He would not have expended and wasted massive resources engaging in needless wars in the "Battle of Britain" or in north Africa nor in occupying and fortifying France.
There would have been no British and American bombers bombing Germany's infrastructure. It's quite possible that American aid to the Soviets would never have happened or that the support would have been significantly less.
Hitler could have had the one-front war that he always wanted and have gone to war with the Soviets without having one arm tied behind his back, so to speak.
I will also add that Hitler's desire to actually take Stalingrad was completely unnecessary and counterproductive. He didn't need to take that city. They could have taken the oil fields in the Caucasus oil fields.
One glaring omission was Hitler's genocide of the Jews. Obviously, this would have been problematic for Germany in the long-term as the western allies, sooner or later, were going to learn of what was happening and would have responded with war. Hitler could have delayed his war against Jewish people in order to focus on winning the war. Thereafter, he could have advocated for the state of Israel and then worked on a program to humanely send European Jews to the newly created state.
Hitler would have needed to take Leningrad and then fortify western Russia and the Ukraine in order to be able to retain his conquests. The Germans were never going to be able to take and keep Moscow or Stalingrad. The Germans simply could not won the battle of attrition with the Soviets over the long-term.
Here is what "winning" the war would have looked like for Germany.
1) Defeating the allied armies in France, disarming the French and then making peace with the allies and, of course, avoiding war with the U.S.
2) Seizing Leningrad, the Ukraine and the Caucasus oil fields and being able to hold those territories.
3) Avoiding genocide of the Jews by, instead, exporting Germany's Jews to Palestine or a newly created "Israel".
Still, the Soviets would not have taken this lying down and the idea that the Germans could have, in the long-term, been able to retain control of their territorial conquests in the east seems unlikely.
Thoughts?
Actually Hitler would have won had he not declared war upon America as quickly as he did. America was isolationist at the time, and would not likely have initiated a war with Hitler. If Hitler had waited just a year we would have committed all of our forces to the Pacific instead of initially Europe as we did. This would have freed Hitler up to invade the UK and then Russia without having to worry about a second front in the West, allowing all resources and manpower to fight in Russia.
It would have also allowed Hitler to complete the major advances in warfare they came close to completing. Not only the V rockets, but Germany had developed a stealth fighter. Because of limited resources Hitler dropped the production of the fighters to create a stealth bomber version. This was intended for a one way mission to major east coast cities with a nuclear bomb in it, which they had also come close to completing. Had these programs been successful the world would be much different than it is today.
It was all about timing.
BS. FDR loved his Uncle Joe.Do you like historical "what ifs?" Here's mine.
Hitler took his eye off the ultimate prize, conquering the Soviet Union. Hitler needlessly and detrimentally went to war with Britain.
Upon taking France, Hitler should have disarmed the French (as they did), dismantled the Maginot Line and then announced that it was unilaterally withdrawing from France and state that they never wanted war with the allies and that their territorial claims in Poland were just. The French would have retained their navy (as they did anyway) and their colonies. I'm confident that the French would have readily accepted such generous terms from the Germans.
Hitler would have refrained from invading Denmark, Norway and north Africa while also refraining from any attacks against the U.K. Politically speaking, Churchill would have had virtually nill support for engaging in war against the Germans considering that the French were out of the war and at peace with Germany and considering that the Germans were not taking any aggressive actions against the U.K.
Hitler also would have needed to NOT declare war on the U.S., as he was apparently bound by agreement with Japan to do.
Had Hitler done these things, Germany would not have been at war with the western allies. He would not have expended and wasted massive resources engaging in needless wars in the "Battle of Britain" or in north Africa nor in occupying and fortifying France.
There would have been no British and American bombers bombing Germany's infrastructure. It's quite possible that American aid to the Soviets would never have happened or that the support would have been significantly less.
Hitler could have had the one-front war that he always wanted and have gone to war with the Soviets without having one arm tied behind his back, so to speak.
I will also add that Hitler's desire to actually take Stalingrad was completely unnecessary and counterproductive. He didn't need to take that city. They could have taken the oil fields in the Caucasus oil fields.
One glaring omission was Hitler's genocide of the Jews. Obviously, this would have been problematic for Germany in the long-term as the western allies, sooner or later, were going to learn of what was happening and would have responded with war. Hitler could have delayed his war against Jewish people in order to focus on winning the war. Thereafter, he could have advocated for the state of Israel and then worked on a program to humanely send European Jews to the newly created state.
Hitler would have needed to take Leningrad and then fortify western Russia and the Ukraine in order to be able to retain his conquests. The Germans were never going to be able to take and keep Moscow or Stalingrad. The Germans simply could not won the battle of attrition with the Soviets over the long-term.
Here is what "winning" the war would have looked like for Germany.
1) Defeating the allied armies in France, disarming the French and then making peace with the allies and, of course, avoiding war with the U.S.
2) Seizing Leningrad, the Ukraine and the Caucasus oil fields and being able to hold those territories.
3) Avoiding genocide of the Jews by, instead, exporting Germany's Jews to Palestine or a newly created "Israel".
Still, the Soviets would not have taken this lying down and the idea that the Germans could have, in the long-term, been able to retain control of their territorial conquests in the east seems unlikely.
Thoughts?
I don't see the French being all cool with being invaded. I think they'd have been looking for revenge again. After all, that's how WWI got so out of control, they were looking for payback for the Franco-Prussian War.
The main reason why Hitler got away with his shit for as long as he did was because the Western Allies HOPED he go after Stalin, who was a scary communist who took stuff away from Rich people.
Instead, he went after their stuff.
BS. FDR loved his Uncle Joe.
Means nothing Joe, as it relates to my post. You have a propensity to post irrelevant shit.BS. FDR loved his Uncle Joe.
Or he realized that the USSR was the country in a position to really do something about it.
Stalin BEGGED the West to open a second front, which really wasn't done until the middle of 1944. Up until that point, most of the fighting was done between the Red Army and the Wehrmacht.
Stalin’s Stooge in the White House, would never agree to this.Do you like historical "what ifs?" Here's mine.
Hitler took his eye off the ultimate prize, conquering the Soviet Union. Hitler needlessly and detrimentally went to war with Britain.
Upon taking France, Hitler should have disarmed the French (as they did), dismantled the Maginot Line and then announced that it was unilaterally withdrawing from France and state that they never wanted war with the allies and that their territorial claims in Poland were just. The French would have retained their navy (as they did anyway) and their colonies. I'm confident that the French would have readily accepted such generous terms from the Germans.
Hitler would have refrained from invading Denmark, Norway and north Africa while also refraining from any attacks against the U.K. Politically speaking, Churchill would have had virtually nill support for engaging in war against the Germans considering that the French were out of the war and at peace with Germany and considering that the Germans were not taking any aggressive actions against the U.K.
Hitler also would have needed to NOT declare war on the U.S., as he was apparently bound by agreement with Japan to do.
Had Hitler done these things, Germany would not have been at war with the western allies. He would not have expended and wasted massive resources engaging in needless wars in the "Battle of Britain" or in north Africa nor in occupying and fortifying France.
There would have been no British and American bombers bombing Germany's infrastructure. It's quite possible that American aid to the Soviets would never have happened or that the support would have been significantly less.
Hitler could have had the one-front war that he always wanted and have gone to war with the Soviets without having one arm tied behind his back, so to speak.
I will also add that Hitler's desire to actually take Stalingrad was completely unnecessary and counterproductive. He didn't need to take that city. They could have taken the oil fields in the Caucasus oil fields.
One glaring omission was Hitler's genocide of the Jews. Obviously, this would have been problematic for Germany in the long-term as the western allies, sooner or later, were going to learn of what was happening and would have responded with war. Hitler could have delayed his war against Jewish people in order to focus on winning the war. Thereafter, he could have advocated for the state of Israel and then worked on a program to humanely send European Jews to the newly created state.
Hitler would have needed to take Leningrad and then fortify western Russia and the Ukraine in order to be able to retain his conquests. The Germans were never going to be able to take and keep Moscow or Stalingrad. The Germans simply could not won the battle of attrition with the Soviets over the long-term.
Here is what "winning" the war would have looked like for Germany.
1) Defeating the allied armies in France, disarming the French and then making peace with the allies and, of course, avoiding war with the U.S.
2) Seizing Leningrad, the Ukraine and the Caucasus oil fields and being able to hold those territories.
3) Avoiding genocide of the Jews by, instead, exporting Germany's Jews to Palestine or a newly created "Israel".
Still, the Soviets would not have taken this lying down and the idea that the Germans could have, in the long-term, been able to retain control of their territorial conquests in the east seems unlikely.
Thoughts?
Stalin’s Stooge is FDR, but yeah his many advisors were lovers of Uncle Joe too.Stalin’s Stooge in the White House, would never agree to this.Do you like historical "what ifs?" Here's mine.
Hitler took his eye off the ultimate prize, conquering the Soviet Union. Hitler needlessly and detrimentally went to war with Britain.
Upon taking France, Hitler should have disarmed the French (as they did), dismantled the Maginot Line and then announced that it was unilaterally withdrawing from France and state that they never wanted war with the allies and that their territorial claims in Poland were just. The French would have retained their navy (as they did anyway) and their colonies. I'm confident that the French would have readily accepted such generous terms from the Germans.
Hitler would have refrained from invading Denmark, Norway and north Africa while also refraining from any attacks against the U.K. Politically speaking, Churchill would have had virtually nill support for engaging in war against the Germans considering that the French were out of the war and at peace with Germany and considering that the Germans were not taking any aggressive actions against the U.K.
Hitler also would have needed to NOT declare war on the U.S., as he was apparently bound by agreement with Japan to do.
Had Hitler done these things, Germany would not have been at war with the western allies. He would not have expended and wasted massive resources engaging in needless wars in the "Battle of Britain" or in north Africa nor in occupying and fortifying France.
There would have been no British and American bombers bombing Germany's infrastructure. It's quite possible that American aid to the Soviets would never have happened or that the support would have been significantly less.
Hitler could have had the one-front war that he always wanted and have gone to war with the Soviets without having one arm tied behind his back, so to speak.
I will also add that Hitler's desire to actually take Stalingrad was completely unnecessary and counterproductive. He didn't need to take that city. They could have taken the oil fields in the Caucasus oil fields.
One glaring omission was Hitler's genocide of the Jews. Obviously, this would have been problematic for Germany in the long-term as the western allies, sooner or later, were going to learn of what was happening and would have responded with war. Hitler could have delayed his war against Jewish people in order to focus on winning the war. Thereafter, he could have advocated for the state of Israel and then worked on a program to humanely send European Jews to the newly created state.
Hitler would have needed to take Leningrad and then fortify western Russia and the Ukraine in order to be able to retain his conquests. The Germans were never going to be able to take and keep Moscow or Stalingrad. The Germans simply could not won the battle of attrition with the Soviets over the long-term.
Here is what "winning" the war would have looked like for Germany.
1) Defeating the allied armies in France, disarming the French and then making peace with the allies and, of course, avoiding war with the U.S.
2) Seizing Leningrad, the Ukraine and the Caucasus oil fields and being able to hold those territories.
3) Avoiding genocide of the Jews by, instead, exporting Germany's Jews to Palestine or a newly created "Israel".
Still, the Soviets would not have taken this lying down and the idea that the Germans could have, in the long-term, been able to retain control of their territorial conquests in the east seems unlikely.
Thoughts?
he or his wife and many of his advisers ?
no sure proof of thatBetter yet.If he kept all of his scientists from leaving Germany he would have had the atomic bomb first.The world would have been his.
"FDR loved Uncle Joe" you know why? koba had mentality of Georgian thieves in law, very attractive for "friendship" . + USA wanted British empire down. but you have a point here FDR administration was badly infected with commiesMeans nothing Joe, as it relates to my post. You have a propensity to post irrelevant shit.BS. FDR loved his Uncle Joe.
Or he realized that the USSR was the country in a position to really do something about it.
Stalin BEGGED the West to open a second front, which really wasn't done until the middle of 1944. Up until that point, most of the fighting was done between the Red Army and the Wehrmacht.
FDR loved Uncle Joe. Communism did not scare FDR. He loved it so much that he filled his administration with Commies.
no sure proof of thatBetter yet.If he kept all of his scientists from leaving Germany he would have had the atomic bomb first.The world would have been his.
1. the US had a lot more manufacturing power and $$$
2. the US was not being bombed round the clock
3. the US had greater manpower
etc
....and the US just got the bomb built in late 1945--so even if Germany was not bombed round the clock, it would've been difficult for them to build the bomb
...and a lot of their heavy water was blown up and sunk
it took more than just brains to build the bomb
US war making potential greater than Germany and Russia together
Grim Economic Realities
"Stalin’s Stooge is FDR," any link ?Stalin’s Stooge is FDR, but yeah his many advisors were lovers of Uncle Joe too.Stalin’s Stooge in the White House, would never agree to this.Do you like historical "what ifs?" Here's mine.
Hitler took his eye off the ultimate prize, conquering the Soviet Union. Hitler needlessly and detrimentally went to war with Britain.
Upon taking France, Hitler should have disarmed the French (as they did), dismantled the Maginot Line and then announced that it was unilaterally withdrawing from France and state that they never wanted war with the allies and that their territorial claims in Poland were just. The French would have retained their navy (as they did anyway) and their colonies. I'm confident that the French would have readily accepted such generous terms from the Germans.
Hitler would have refrained from invading Denmark, Norway and north Africa while also refraining from any attacks against the U.K. Politically speaking, Churchill would have had virtually nill support for engaging in war against the Germans considering that the French were out of the war and at peace with Germany and considering that the Germans were not taking any aggressive actions against the U.K.
Hitler also would have needed to NOT declare war on the U.S., as he was apparently bound by agreement with Japan to do.
Had Hitler done these things, Germany would not have been at war with the western allies. He would not have expended and wasted massive resources engaging in needless wars in the "Battle of Britain" or in north Africa nor in occupying and fortifying France.
There would have been no British and American bombers bombing Germany's infrastructure. It's quite possible that American aid to the Soviets would never have happened or that the support would have been significantly less.
Hitler could have had the one-front war that he always wanted and have gone to war with the Soviets without having one arm tied behind his back, so to speak.
I will also add that Hitler's desire to actually take Stalingrad was completely unnecessary and counterproductive. He didn't need to take that city. They could have taken the oil fields in the Caucasus oil fields.
One glaring omission was Hitler's genocide of the Jews. Obviously, this would have been problematic for Germany in the long-term as the western allies, sooner or later, were going to learn of what was happening and would have responded with war. Hitler could have delayed his war against Jewish people in order to focus on winning the war. Thereafter, he could have advocated for the state of Israel and then worked on a program to humanely send European Jews to the newly created state.
Hitler would have needed to take Leningrad and then fortify western Russia and the Ukraine in order to be able to retain his conquests. The Germans were never going to be able to take and keep Moscow or Stalingrad. The Germans simply could not won the battle of attrition with the Soviets over the long-term.
Here is what "winning" the war would have looked like for Germany.
1) Defeating the allied armies in France, disarming the French and then making peace with the allies and, of course, avoiding war with the U.S.
2) Seizing Leningrad, the Ukraine and the Caucasus oil fields and being able to hold those territories.
3) Avoiding genocide of the Jews by, instead, exporting Germany's Jews to Palestine or a newly created "Israel".
Still, the Soviets would not have taken this lying down and the idea that the Germans could have, in the long-term, been able to retain control of their territorial conquests in the east seems unlikely.
Thoughts?
he or his wife and many of his advisers ?
Funny...lefties like to claim Trump and Putin are butt boys, when the fact is Stalin and FDR really were.
if if if if if if if if if to infinity
no--he could not have won the war
At that time parts of the US operated an apartheid scheme that Hitler would have drooled over. So he might have picked up some support for a deal.if if if if if if if if if to infinity
no--he could not have won the war
We'll never know for sure. That's why it's fun to speculate.
In my OP, I posit that Hitler needed to avoid war with the U.S. and make peace with the U.K. and France. Hitler may have been able to secure his desired "living space" in the Ukraine for an indefinite amount of time.
one for sure without USA/UK involvement, Germany ´d easy destroy Koba´s USSR, something what putler´s "russia"strong1111! propaganda ´d never admitif if if if if if if if if to infinity
no--he could not have won the war
We'll never know for sure. That's why it's fun to speculate.
In my OP, I posit that Hitler needed to avoid war with the U.S. and make peace with the U.K. and France. Hitler may have been able to secure his desired "living space" in the Ukraine for an indefinite amount of time.
At that time parts of the US operated an apartheid scheme that Hitler would have drooled over. So he might have picked up some support for a deal.if if if if if if if if if to infinity
no--he could not have won the war
We'll never know for sure. That's why it's fun to speculate.
In my OP, I posit that Hitler needed to avoid war with the U.S. and make peace with the U.K. and France. Hitler may have been able to secure his desired "living space" in the Ukraine for an indefinite amount of time.
But if we are playing "what ifs" it may have brought civil rights to the forefront and hastened the changes that came 20 years later.At that time parts of the US operated an apartheid scheme that Hitler would have drooled over. So he might have picked up some support for a deal.if if if if if if if if if to infinity
no--he could not have won the war
We'll never know for sure. That's why it's fun to speculate.
In my OP, I posit that Hitler needed to avoid war with the U.S. and make peace with the U.K. and France. Hitler may have been able to secure his desired "living space" in the Ukraine for an indefinite amount of time.
The Nazis learned a lot about racism from the Democratic Party, but that's probably another thread.
At that time parts of the US operated an apartheid scheme that Hitler would have drooled over. So he might have picked up some support for a deal.if if if if if if if if if to infinity
no--he could not have won the war
We'll never know for sure. That's why it's fun to speculate.
In my OP, I posit that Hitler needed to avoid war with the U.S. and make peace with the U.K. and France. Hitler may have been able to secure his desired "living space" in the Ukraine for an indefinite amount of time.
The Nazis learned a lot about racism from the Democratic Party, but that's probably another thread.
Diversity; E Pluribus Unum.Do you like historical "what ifs?" Here's mine.
Hitler took his eye off the ultimate prize, conquering the Soviet Union. Hitler needlessly and detrimentally went to war with Britain.
Upon taking France, Hitler should have disarmed the French (as they did), dismantled the Maginot Line and then announced that it was unilaterally withdrawing from France and state that they never wanted war with the allies and that their territorial claims in Poland were just. The French would have retained their navy (as they did anyway) and their colonies. I'm confident that the French would have readily accepted such generous terms from the Germans.
Hitler would have refrained from invading Denmark, Norway and north Africa while also refraining from any attacks against the U.K. Politically speaking, Churchill would have had virtually nill support for engaging in war against the Germans considering that the French were out of the war and at peace with Germany and considering that the Germans were not taking any aggressive actions against the U.K.
Hitler also would have needed to NOT declare war on the U.S., as he was apparently bound by agreement with Japan to do.
Had Hitler done these things, Germany would not have been at war with the western allies. He would not have expended and wasted massive resources engaging in needless wars in the "Battle of Britain" or in north Africa nor in occupying and fortifying France.
There would have been no British and American bombers bombing Germany's infrastructure. It's quite possible that American aid to the Soviets would never have happened or that the support would have been significantly less.
Hitler could have had the one-front war that he always wanted and have gone to war with the Soviets without having one arm tied behind his back, so to speak.
I will also add that Hitler's desire to actually take Stalingrad was completely unnecessary and counterproductive. He didn't need to take that city. They could have taken the oil fields in the Caucasus oil fields.
One glaring omission was Hitler's genocide of the Jews. Obviously, this would have been problematic for Germany in the long-term as the western allies, sooner or later, were going to learn of what was happening and would have responded with war. Hitler could have delayed his war against Jewish people in order to focus on winning the war. Thereafter, he could have advocated for the state of Israel and then worked on a program to humanely send European Jews to the newly created state.
Hitler would have needed to take Leningrad and then fortify western Russia and the Ukraine in order to be able to retain his conquests. The Germans were never going to be able to take and keep Moscow or Stalingrad. The Germans simply could not won the battle of attrition with the Soviets over the long-term.
Here is what "winning" the war would have looked like for Germany.
1) Defeating the allied armies in France, disarming the French and then making peace with the allies and, of course, avoiding war with the U.S.
2) Seizing Leningrad, the Ukraine and the Caucasus oil fields and being able to hold those territories.
3) Avoiding genocide of the Jews by, instead, exporting Germany's Jews to Palestine or a newly created "Israel".
Still, the Soviets would not have taken this lying down and the idea that the Germans could have, in the long-term, been able to retain control of their territorial conquests in the east seems unlikely.
Thoughts?
Diversity; E Pluribus Unum. Our US Constitution ensures we can Always muster an Army Group in Reserve.
