PDA

View Full Version : WW2 - what if the Nazis had won?


ZeBedie
18th Jan 2018, 16:57
How would Europe look now? Would the UK be part of a German dominated European super-state? Would we be slaves, or would we be paying through the nose to lease Audi's and BMW's?

Trossie
18th Jan 2018, 16:59
It was not possible for them to win.

ZeBedie
18th Jan 2018, 17:18
It was not possible for them to win.

If V1, V2, Me262 had a little more time, if the Pearl Harbour didn't happen, if Hitler had not attacked Russia - all sorts of thing could have been different.

meadowrun
18th Jan 2018, 17:20
There would be a lot more dead Germans.
Then me, sooner or later..

Espada III
18th Jan 2018, 17:20
Had they won? German rule over Europe much the way the Soviet Union ruled over the Eastern Bloc. Needless to say, about 12,000,000 Jews dead plus probably another 4,000,000 disbled, Roma, blacks. And what about Russia? How many of them dead? Would Russia still be a separate country.

I suspect that the answer is as Trossie said. In the end, they would have been overwhelmed by numbers, just as the communists in the eastern bloc eventually were defeated. But assuming a win over the UK, followed by a long term attrition with Russia and the US, you are talking of tens of millions dead, no African/Caribbean/Moslem immigration to Europe and a far weaker economy than we have now.

ZeBedie
18th Jan 2018, 17:21
It was not possible for them to win.

Actually, that assertion is an insult to all who fought and died, though yes, there came a time when defeat for the Nazis became inevitable.

Jet II
18th Jan 2018, 17:24
If V1, V2, Me262 had a little more time, if the Pearl Harbour didn't happen, if Hitler had not attacked Russia - all sorts of thing could have been different.

if, if, if - if Hitler hadn't lost one ball he wouldn't have invaded Poland.. ;)

goudie
18th Jan 2018, 17:27
In truth it was a damn close run thing

wiggy
18th Jan 2018, 17:42
In truth it was a damn close run thing

Yep...so true...

TBH I’ve always thought the more interesting but pointless debate is what saved the U.K. in1940...a stiff upper lip or did the Channel, and the Channel alone, save the country....

And then getting really abstract if the Channel hadn’t been there we wouldn’t have had Dunkirk and so would the hopefully better equipped remnants of the BEF, havin* pulled back with some form of order and some of their equipment have been able hold the line south east of London, and/or would the extended supply lines have done for Rommel et al......

G-CPTN
18th Jan 2018, 17:51
If Hitler has pursued his objective after Dunkirk then I think that the situation might have been different.

I used to joke with my German colleagues (when I worked in a German company) that they had so many public holidays in May and June was why they lost the War.

Bittell Lakes
18th Jan 2018, 18:11
Under the postulate proposed in the OP, a large fascist empire would have been global top dog and Germany would have vied with some also-rans for second and third place.

They could have made it an administrative construct, taxed those who were subject to it just to fund the entity itself and punished any province which dared to try to escape.

vapilot2004
18th Jan 2018, 19:41
Take the US and Russia out of the picture, and Hitler's regime could have reigned over Europe, North Africa and the Sand Pit for quite some time. That is not to say countries like England would have stopped fighting, but without materiel and men, conventional war is rather difficult to prosecute successfully.

Had the Nazis won, I believe the outcome of WWII would be similar to that of the first world war - leaving behind the need for another (a third). More likely than not, the third war would have involved the wider use of nuclear weapons with a decidedly unpleasant aftermath across Europe.

Mikey66
18th Jan 2018, 19:52
Didn't the Russians win the war?

Lonewolf_50
18th Jan 2018, 19:53
vapilot, Hitlers distaste for the untermensch was bound to cause conflict between USSR and Nazi Germany. Both he and Stalin knew that one of them would break that non aggression pact ... the question was who and when. The central/eastern Europe breadbasket was a crucial strategic aim of the Third Reich, in the long term.

vapilot2004
18th Jan 2018, 19:55
If Hitler won, a strong USSR seems unlikely, yes? That aside, are you saying arable land needs would have precluded the use of nuclear weapons in Europe by the Nazis? Seems reasonable.

Also reasonable, I think is the idea that the Americans may have been forced, in a year or so, to drop a few nukes over Germany, had the war gone the other way.

Mikey66
18th Jan 2018, 19:58
Sorry, excuse my ignorance,50 million dead all sides? Ww2 inevitable with/without hitler? Do wonder if it happened 2 or 3 years later then the consequences might have been a lot more disastrous

ericsson16
18th Jan 2018, 19:58
Robert Harris fatherland,good read I thought.

Lonewolf_50
18th Jan 2018, 20:02
If Hitler won, a strong USSR seems unlikely, yes? in the even that the Third Reich was victorious, it would have been very much at the expense of the USSR in central and eastern Europe. The USSR would have been broken up, and the Third Reich would have included quite a bit of Poland, Ukraine, and most of the Baltic States. With Moscow significantly taken down a peg, I am not sure what happens in the Stans/Near Abroad but I suspect devolution of the USSR would shortly follow.

tdracer
18th Jan 2018, 20:15
It was not possible for them to win.
I call bullocks on that - there are any number of 'what if's' that could have changed the whole outcome, not the least of which being that the UK/Churchill didn't back down so when the US entered the war they had access to bases in Europe. Can you imagine the logistical nightmare of D-Day launched from North America instead of the UK?
Heck even Hitler declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor made a massive difference - he did it because he wanted Japan to declare war on the Soviets - which of course they didn't do. If Hitler had known, it's quite possible he wouldn't have declared war on the US for some time - giving him more time to subdue Britain.
I've read several books by some of the German generals - and there is a common thread - they think (or at least imply) that if Hitler had let the generals operating in Russia do what they thought was best, it was possible to defeat Stalin (note that early in Barbarossa, the Germans were greeted as liberators - it wasn't until the SS showed up and started their atrocities that the locals turned against the Germans). As it was, even with a number of Hitler dumbass (e.g. Stalingrad) Soviet losses outnumbered German by ~10 to 1. Without some of Hitler's interference, that number might have been 20 to 1 or higher - it's questionable if even the Soviets could have withstood that level of losses.
Yes, at some point it became impossible for Germany to win, but that wasn't the case in 1941.

cavortingcheetah
18th Jan 2018, 21:31
Well, notwithstanding anything that The Man in the High Castle might have had to say, I would hazard a guess that there'd be peace in the Middle East, not to much of an African migratory problem and probably quite a lot less of Jon Lansman, Seamus Milne and their gang of Marxist storm troopers.
There wouldn't have been that appalling war in the Balkans that so precisely illustrated the utter uselessness of the UN. North Korea would not exist as a dictatorial fief. The centre of world business would be Frankfurt. Medical research would have provided cures and palliatives for much that ails humans. Those involved in the arts and sciences would be respected and the youth would be organised into useful little boy scout like groups with bob a job considered a noble rather than a demeaning way of contributing to society and the elderly in particular.
One could go on a little further down the yellow brick autobahn but it's time to stop at one of those first class German rest stations where the food is outstanding, the beer is exceptional and the lavatories are immaculately clean being looked after by guest workers for the price of a Mark.

SARF
18th Jan 2018, 22:46
The U.K. could have made terms with hitler easily. Hitler could have cracked on with dismantling Russia. Well his generals could if he wasn’t bonkers.. he would also have been dead by 47 anyway and a sensible divvy up could have been arranged .
U.K. keeps,most of the empire, southern Spain, northern France and the algarve for holidays..
possibly an alp or two so we could turn sking.. a mundane transport mechanism.. into racing.. oh hang on we did that anyway

fitliker
19th Jan 2018, 02:01
Who was it that said " You cannot kill an idea " ?

Would you know a Nazi if you met one ?

Berlin calling, again.

RatherBeFlying
19th Jan 2018, 02:57
The Orange One has taken over the White House.

Brexit is proceeding.

Die neue Untermenschen are Muslim.

Die Juden have moved off to Israel where they are teaching die islamischen Untermenschen their place in the world:p

tartare
19th Jan 2018, 03:53
Well, under one scenario, if the Hortons had contributed to the win, several US eastern seaboard cities would have been radioactive smoking craters...

West Coast
19th Jan 2018, 05:19
Only page two before someone minus the ability to stay on task Trumps up.

LowNSlow
19th Jan 2018, 07:53
Hitler would have had to spend at least 1941 building up to invading and then subjugating Britain. Could he have done it? Given the lack of urgency in German military production until the start of desperation in 1943 I doubt it. The ability for Germany to assert the total superiority required for an amphibious assault across the Channel would not have happened as Britain out-produced them in term of fighter aircraft, pilots and of course tanks for the ultimate defence.

SMT Member
19th Jan 2018, 08:36
There's a tale of two Norwegian and American officers having a heated debate about WWII. At one point the American decides to play his trump card 'if it wasn't for us, you lot would all be speaking German by now!' to which the Norwegian officer replied 'we already do, but if it wasn't for you lot, my lot would all be driving Mercs and have servants by now'.

Hempy
19th Jan 2018, 11:06
There are too many variables to say Germany couldn’t have ‘won’. It’s true that Hitler was always going to turn east eventually, he’d written about lebensraum in the east in the 1920’s. The war in western europe was purely to shore up his rear (snigger) so he didn’t face a war on two fronts as per 1914-1917.

But:

- What if he had waited until 1942 to attack Poland, the year the High Command had declared would see the German military at full strength?
- What if the Kriegsmarine had 300 ocean going submarines at the outset of the war instead of 30 (i.e by 1942) ?
- What if he had allowed Guderians Panzers to roll through to Dunkirk?
- What if he had convinced the Japanese to intervene in eastern Russia?
- What if he hadn’t split Army Group South in an attempt to take the oil fields in the Caucasus AND cut the Volga at Stalingrad? Whilst he could have achieved either objective quite easily, he ended up achieving neither (and losing the entire 6th Army in the process).

etc. etc. etc.

The Germans had lost the war by the end of 1942. After the debacle at Stalingrad the German Army was fighting back towards Germany.

If they ever had a chance to win, it had to be during the first 3 years of the war.

Jet II
19th Jan 2018, 11:45
There are too many variables to say Germany couldn’t have ‘won’.

Considering that Germany almost won even with all the daft mistakes made by Adolf had they had someone sensible running the show then they could quite easily have come out on top.

Bittell Lakes
19th Jan 2018, 12:25
Would the UK population have fought an effective resistance against the German army, or would we have capitulated? Is it fantasy to think we could have done more than, say, the French?

meadowrun
19th Jan 2018, 12:48
Really?
Two utter and total defeats in 30 years doesn't convince you otherwise?

radeng
19th Jan 2018, 16:32
Chamberlain 'bought' a year's respite after Munich, which allowed a good start on building radar stations, Hurricane and Spitfire and warship production and the necessary planning for turning over railway works to producing war material such as tanks and aircraft parts. So much so that at a later stage in the war, the services were combed for railway boiler makers to demobilise and the pressure was on the railway workshops to build locomotives and wagons rather than tanks and aircraft!

Had Germany waited until 1942, they would have faced a much stronger RAF and Navy and a better equipped Army. It might well have then become an even bloodier conflict than it was.

Trossie
19th Jan 2018, 16:53
Is it fantasy to think we could have done more than, say, the French?What exactly did the French do?

Trossie
19th Jan 2018, 16:54
Considering that Germany almost won...What did Germany 'almost win'?

radeng
19th Jan 2018, 17:03
What exactly did the French do?

Sent details of V1 launch sites. Sent escaped POWs to Spain, sabotaged railways and troop trains. The Resistance was a PITA to the Germans and tied down forces that could have been useful elsewhere.

The big problem for the French was the reluctance to spend money from 1935 on building up their forces. Even in the UK, up to 1935, the Treasury fixed the Defence Budget on the basis of 'no war for ten years'. I've seen it claimed that after that time, at least 5% of GDP went on re-armament and something like 10% of that on RDF.

radeng
19th Jan 2018, 17:20
Pretty much the same as the Channel Islanders did.

One I knew stayed behind because he was the only plumber on Guernsey and there was an emergency plumbing crisis at the hospital. He got jailed for having a radio, and when the Germans badly needed a plumber, he 'collaborated'. Did the plumbing job, went back to gaol with all the parts for a crystal set hidden in his trousers and with the connivance of the Guernsey gaoler, pulled up the flagstones, laid an aerial in the sewer and relayed the BBC News round the island through the gaoler. When released later, he had some Germans billeted in his farmhouse: between one unit moving out and another moving in, a haystack was built over a staff car so Jack had a car after the war! He also had an underground water tank that managed to get pumped out and filled with several thousand gallons of German petrol which helped after the Liberation. He got arrested again when a party of them tried to get a lifeboat down the cliffs at Moulin Huet Bay - lucky he wasn't shot. His big regret was that the optical range finder on Jerbourg point was taken away. He had a very good collection of German military radios, which would probably fetch £8,000 to £10,000 today....His other 'liberation' German war material included Gyp, an Alsatian puppy born to a Nazi police dog!

He was known as 'De Carteret, the Sarkee' as his family had emigrated to Guernsey from Sark in 1588, and wouldn't really be considered a Guernsey family until they had been on the island for 500 years

meadowrun
19th Jan 2018, 18:17
"In 1939 the French Army was widely considered the best in the world. Notably, France outnumbered Germany in tanks, planes, and just about everything else. Its equipment was top-of-the-line and was in most cases equal to or better than what the Germans had. However, the French military suffered from poor leadership, poor morale and outdated doctrine." Reddit

cavortingcheetah
19th Jan 2018, 18:39
A fact, conveniently often lost in the eyes of the victor is that the evacuation from Dunkirk would certainly not have been as successful as it was had the French 1st Army not held the Germans at bay in the southern corridor approach.
Once the evacuation was complete, that army was surrendered to the by then far superior German forces. In addition, three French destroyers were sunk defending the British small boats during the evacuation.
I haven't seen the movie but I do hope that therein, credit is given to an ally where it is due.

Chronus
19th Jan 2018, 18:51
How would Europe look now? Would the UK be part of a German dominated European super-state? Would we be slaves, or would we be paying through the nose to lease Audi's and BMW's?

The consequences would not have been confined to Europe alone.
What about the Japanese and the Italians. Does the question not also need an assumption that the Axis Powers were the victors. Implying that the Allies were the vanquished. That would include the USA, which would mean they would have had apartheid and Obama would not have existed and the Civil War would have been a complete waste of time.

But so far as the direct questions regarding life in the UK. Those of us of Non -Aryan features/ancestry would be breaking rock, digging turf, shovelling shit and leasing donkeys and mules rather than Audis and BMWs.

rotornut
20th Jan 2018, 00:41
Len Deighton wrote a book about it:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-GB

Mike Flynn
20th Jan 2018, 00:48
I doubt the modern Calais situation would have existed.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
20th Jan 2018, 09:26
When would it have been considered they had won? With the capitulation of the UK? With a peace between Germany and the UK? There would be a very great difference between a defeated UK and a still independent UK co-existing under treaty.There was nothing in Africa that would have hindered the German expansion or threatened them. There may have then been a time of uneasy cohabitation with the Soviet in the east. The US would have stayed out of Europe and concentrated on defeating the Japanese, and then possibly co-existed with the 3rd Reich ruling Europe (as they seemed content to do before Pearl Harbour). Perhaps inevitably the Germans and Soviets may have come to blows. Without western aid, the use of the UK as an aircraft carrier to destroy German manufacturing, and the division of German resources following the allied invasion, how long would the Soviets have lasted? Or for that matter, given the almost unlimited manpower of the Soviets, how long would Germany have lasted. Would the US have supported the Soviets, or continued to stay out of European affairs? I don't think there is any doubt the result in the Pacific would have changed at all, in fact it probably would have been concluded much quicker with the US being able to focus all their attention on the Japanese.
If the Soviets had defeated the Nazis on their own, would they have allowed the subjugated nations to resume home rule, or just substituted themselves as masters?
I think the end result if they had "won" would have been 2 or 3 "empires" remaining. i think probably Europe & Africa under the Nazis, Asia (USSR/China) under the Soviets, the rest under the US sphere of influence. If the Nazis and Soviets had come to blows, then maybe only the victor and the US.

galaxy flyer
20th Jan 2018, 14:48
A friend of mine liked to tell the story of his staff tour in Ottawa. He was traveling with a Canadian group in Europe. Walking Paris, one of them stepped in a dog stool, sword a big and said, “it’d be cleaner if the Germans were here.”

GF

fitliker
20th Jan 2018, 15:32
What made him think it was dog poo ?
The amount of people sleeping rough in the streets of most major cities in Europe thanks to the dictates and directives from Merkel would make me think it was from a two legged animal .
Poor sanitation always leads to disease. Lack of public toilets can create outbreaks like the hepatitis outbreaks in San Diego and Cholera in other shities.

rigpiggy
20th Jan 2018, 15:55
Why are there trees on the champs élysées?



And why many europeans have their noses turned up to on this side of the pond:}

Pontius Navigator
20th Jan 2018, 16:07
America's position was not clear cut. There were strong factions supporting a greater neutrality and other for siding with Germany. Had Japan not attacked, would the US have become a belligerent, notwithstanding the German U-boat aggression pre-Pearl Harbour?

Pontius Navigator
20th Jan 2018, 16:20
Would Kalashnikov have invented an ubiquitous automatic rifle?

Pontius Navigator
20th Jan 2018, 16:25
RadEng, we became friendly with a Mrs Carteret. She had been much younger than her husband. He was a cart driver commanded by the Germans to carry the bodies of RN sailors from HMS Charybdis to Foulon cemetery. At the end of the ceremony he stole the White Ensign an caused the Germans much angst. There is much more to the story.

Expatrick
20th Jan 2018, 17:11
The Moscow Option by David Downing is an interesting exploration of the possibilities although the prediction of the end result...well, I won't spoil the ending.

Gertrude the Wombat
20th Jan 2018, 18:05
America's position was not clear cut. There were strong factions supporting a greater neutrality and other for siding with Germany. Had Japan not attacked, would the US have become a belligerent, notwithstanding the German U-boat aggression pre-Pearl Harbour?
Or would it have continued selling to both sides making as much profit as possible?

annakm
20th Jan 2018, 18:17
Charles Lindbergh certainly didn’t want the USA drawn into the defence of Europe:

CHARLES A. LINDBERGH: War and Peace: Two Historic Speeches (http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/speech3.asp)

Although, he fathered 7 children (apart from those with his wife) by three European women. There were implications that he had a pro eugenic stance and wished to ensure the continuation of his ‘superior’ intellect and genes.

Chronus
20th Jan 2018, 18:28
Worst of all in this what if, is we would never have seen Alo Alo.

rotornut
20th Jan 2018, 18:33
would the US have become a belligerent, notwithstanding the German U-boat aggression pre-Pearl Harbour?
Germany declared war on US on December 11, 1941
Germany declares war on the United States - Dec 11, 1941 - HISTORY.com (http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-declares-war-on-the-united-states)

Mr Oleo Strut
20th Jan 2018, 19:49
Yep...so true...

TBH I’ve always thought the more interesting but pointless debate is what saved the U.K. in1940...a stiff upper lip or did the Channel, and the Channel alone, save the country....

And then getting really abstract if the Channel hadn’t been there we wouldn’t have had Dunkirk and so would the hopefully better equipped remnants of the BEF, havin* pulled back with some form of order and some of their equipment have been able hold the line south east of London, and/or would the extended supply lines have done for Rommel et al......

Very interesting. I wonder that every time I cross the Channel, together with what if the Normandy landings had failed? They were all close run things. Despite our finest hour and standing alone etc., the US and Russia really won the war, Hitler lost it with his mad and damaging interference, and we were ruined, even though we were on the winning side and the sea saved us. What does surprise me is that strategic carpet bombing did not break public morale anywhere.

vapilot2004
20th Jan 2018, 19:53
Certain Americans would no longer be able to say, "If it wasn't for us, you'd all be speaking German now". :}

Pontius Navigator
20th Jan 2018, 20:52
Germany declared war on US on December 11, 1941
Germany declares war on the United States - Dec 11, 1941 - HISTORY.com (http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-declares-war-on-the-united-states)

Yes, my point. Pre Pearl the US was a nonbelligerent but friendly to GB and taking robust action against German UBoats, but remained neutral friendly to UK.

IMHO, Sealion failed for three reasons: Hitler didn't press the advantage, the threat posed by the RN to the invasion barges, and the failure of the Luftwaffe to gain air supremacy. In other words, not what we did but that Hitler thought he would lose.

Bittell Lakes
20th Jan 2018, 21:02
What does surprise me is that strategic carpet bombing did not break public morale anywhere.

You could say that the moral of the civilian population in Berlin was broken at the end, I think?

Pontius Navigator
20th Jan 2018, 21:09
On the question of who won, the real question is who lost least. Thanks to the Marshall Plan, much of Europe fared better than UK. I still remember a steak in a Scheveningen that I didn't get to eat and an ice cream in Rotterdam that I did.

Pontius Navigator
20th Jan 2018, 21:17
. What does surprise me is that strategic carpet bombing did not break public morale anywhere.
Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”: FDR's First Inaugural Address..

Once you face up to the fear and realise it is not as you thought then then the threat loses its impact.

If OTOH you recognise carpet bombing was a technical necessity for strategic effect on war production, then public morale ceases to be a factor.

meadowrun
20th Jan 2018, 21:35
Don't think US anti-U-Boat operations on the US E. Coast pre-1941, even for a considerable time afterwards, could possibly be characterized as "robust"


A few fishing boats with a machine gun and a light were not much in the way of deterrents. Look up Admiral King and the U-boat "Happy Times".

vapilot2004
20th Jan 2018, 21:39
Not disagreeing, MR...

My father's career in the USN began aboard a sub chaser. The small fleet was tasked not with patrolling our shores, but instead, escorting convoys across the Atlantic.

Many of the boats were indeed small, wooden vessels, but as the war progressed, steel hulled boats upwards of 170 feet at the waterline were employed.

Expatrick
20th Jan 2018, 22:03
Would Kalashnikov have invented an ubiquitous automatic rifle?

StG44 would have sufficed.

BusyB
20th Jan 2018, 23:42
Good novel on Kindle unlimited "Invitation to Hitler". Worth a read for what ifs.

troppo
21st Jan 2018, 03:02
https://img.4plebs.org/boards/tv/image/1513/28/1513288169393.jpg

You have two seasons to catch up on.

Hempy
21st Jan 2018, 08:40
You could say that the moral of the civilian population in Berlin was broken at the end, I think?

Berliners were still attending the workplace and going about their ordinary daily lives even as the Russians made their way into the city. If civilian morale was ‘broken’ by the end, it was more to do with the fact that ‘Germany’, by that stage, consisted of a strip of land about 70 miles wide.

There is no doubt that the bombing of Berlin, as with the firebombing of Dresden and Hamburg, supressed civilian morale - tens of thousands of innocent civilians, mostly women, children and elderly, were blown up, crushed, incinerated or vaporised. But history would suggest that it did absolutely nothing to shorten the war or instigate a popular revolt in Germany.

Gertrude the Wombat
21st Jan 2018, 09:56
tens of thousands of innocent civilians, mostly women, children and elderly, were blown up, crushed, incinerated or vaporised.
Some of those "innocent" civilians (not the children, but the women and elderly) must, surely, have been amongst those who voted the Nazis into power, so hardly "innocent". Sometimes - admittedly not very often, but just sometimes - you get what you vote for.

ShotOne
21st Jan 2018, 12:29
"StG44 would have sufficed.." Indeed, expatrick. They're similar enough that the official memorial to Michail Kalashnikov depicts the (original?) German weapon rather than an AK.

ThorMos
21st Jan 2018, 12:34
On the question of who won, the real question is who lost least. Thanks to the Marshall Plan, much of Europe fared better than UK. I still remember a steak in a Scheveningen that I didn't get to eat and an ice cream in Rotterdam that I did.

Ah, interesting. Can you elaborate?
Did the UK not receive funds from the Marshall Plan?

Highway1
21st Jan 2018, 12:55
Berliners were still attending the workplace and going about their ordinary daily lives even as the Russians made their way into the city. If civilian morale was ‘broken’ by the end, it was more to do with the fact that ‘Germany’, by that stage, consisted of a strip of land about 70 miles wide.

There is no doubt that the bombing of Berlin, as with the firebombing of Dresden and Hamburg, supressed civilian morale - tens of thousands of innocent civilians, mostly women, children and elderly, were blown up, crushed, incinerated or vaporised. But history would suggest that it did absolutely nothing to shorten the war or instigate a popular revolt in Germany.

If the purpose of the bombing campaign was only to destroy civilian morale you would have a point. But it was also to disrupt the war effort by destroying factories and communication lines that supported the troops at the front. Also the air campaign tied up troops and materiel that could have been used in other theaters of the war, for example the Germans had 15,000 88mm Flak guns tied up in air defence when they could have been arguably more use in anti tank duties on the Eastern Front (the 88 being one of the few guns that could stop the T34 at the time)

Pontius Navigator
21st Jan 2018, 13:06
ThorMos, I stand corrected, I see the UK was the largest recipient. However the other thing I heard was the benefit of the strategic bombing campaign meant German factories benefitted from new plant whereas British factories had obsolete plant.

visibility3miles
21st Jan 2018, 13:19
there are any number of 'what if's' that could have changed the whole outcome, not the least of which being that the UK/Churchill didn't back down so when the US entered the war they had access to bases in Europe. Can you imagine the logistical nightmare of D-Day launched from North America instead of the UK?

The logistics would be more than a nightmare.

D-Day without gliders and small boats?

I don't think they could have done it.

hiflymk3
21st Jan 2018, 13:56
"We shall never surrender." For the nazis to defeat Britain they would have had to invade.

I remember a TV documentary a few years ago when current German and British top brass played a war game based on Germany invading Britain. The Germans came ashore at Cuckmere Haven on the Sussex coast. After initial success the force managed to penetrate 20 miles inland before the Royal Navy and RAF cut off their supply route across the channel. The invasion fizzled out.

Both the German and British brass agreed that that would have been the most likely outcome.

Pontius Navigator
21st Jan 2018, 14:40
V3m, similarly an invasion of Japan was impossible without gliders and small craft from a nearby base.

Oh, hang on a minute, they did (or would have if necessary)

ChickenHouse
21st Jan 2018, 17:02
The real question after all these years is - would Angela Merkel act any different if not being post-lost-war cancellor but being post nazis-won? Looking at Germany and Europe at this evening, I doubt the outcome of WW II had any influence on it.

ShotOne
21st Jan 2018, 17:14
Interesting original question; thing is, if the Nazis had won the war they intended and wanted to fight, Britain wouldn’t have been involved at all. Arguably the two “evil empires” of fascism and communism were always going to collide

wiggy
21st Jan 2018, 17:40
On the question of who won, the real question is who lost least. Thanks to the Marshall Plan, much of Europe fared better than UK....

Whatever the reason certainly many think the UK was ultimately the nation that fared worse as a result of WW2....for example see Stephen Ambrose’s comments in the final episode of the “World at War” series.

Pontius Navigator
21st Jan 2018, 18:20
IMNSHO, I believe German foreign policy is unchanged since Bismnark and 1871. In terms of a long game, they also had three goes at the Scliffen plan.

Mac the Knife
21st Jan 2018, 19:07
The problem with revisionist history, as Barbara Tuchman pointed out, is that there have to be too many "ifs". It isn't a "But for horseshoe a battle was lost, etc." because that just isn't the way history works.

Even a single battle, such as Agincourt (25 October 1415), lasting a single day, in which an English army of 6000-9000 defeated a numerically superior French army (12,000-36000) has so many if and buts in it that "Suppose the French had won the Battle of Agincourt" is a question that becomes almost meaningless.

Would it have shortened the Hundred Years' War? Probably not (it fizzled out after Battle of Castillon on 17 July 1453) - France & England remained theoretically at war for a further 20 odd years, but in the end unrest at home meant that the English were no longer able to sustain the war.

And it depends on what you call "winning" - IF the evacuation of Dunkirk had been unsuccessful, IF a German invasion of England had been successful, IF the USA had not entered the War - it just goes on and on.

Looking at the broadest picture, Trossie gave the best answer in the second post of the thread, "It was not possible for them to win".

Even if Britain had been successfully invaded (most unlikely), German hegemony over Europe would have been (as it was), incomplete and unstable. They simply did not have the manpower to successfully hold down such a large and mostly hostile Empire. And while it may be possible to murder 6 million, 400 million is a rather different proposition.

And Russia, with huge population and its ability to retreat into a vast hinterland, crammed with natural resources, would inevitably have regrouped and rammed its way into Europe.

One could go on all night (so I won't) but the answer is not 42, but

"It was not possible for them to win"

Mac

[Interesting discussion to have though . . .]

ShotOne
21st Jan 2018, 21:57
Except that only addresses one set of “ifs” Mac. It was Britain which declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland. What if we hadn’t? Of course Germany and the Soviet Union were allies at that point...but that was never destined to be a good marriage.

galaxy flyer
21st Jan 2018, 22:04
Mac,

Germany’s position was very much like the South’s in the US Civil War—not possible to win. The forces arrayed against both could not be overcome by brilliant commanders and fierce armies.

GF

Turbine D
21st Jan 2018, 22:23
"It was not possible for them to win"
I agree with Mac, once The Germans decided to go East and into Russia, the end was a matter of only time. The Russians moved all their important arms industrial factories and people to the Eastside of the Ural Mountains and the German supply lines could never have held up given the distances involved. Also, if one looks at history, what country ever successfully invaded Russia from the West and won the war, history wasn't kind to those that tried...

meadowrun
21st Jan 2018, 22:33
Not to mention the top ranks of the Nazi Party were filled with drug addled (troops too!), clinically insane (all sorts), deranged, raving megalomaniacs who collectively were doomed to failure in any timeline.

ShotOne
21st Jan 2018, 22:34
Agreed. But that scenario was far from pre-destined in 1939. Had Britain not chosen to declare war, the Russo-German war of 1940 would have been, not a historical footnote, but certainly not a world war. It’s quite likely it would have gone Germany’s way and exceptionally unlikely the USA would have become involved

cavortingcheetah
22nd Jan 2018, 07:22
If the Nazis had won, the youth in Britain today would never been offered the option of voting for Jeremy Corbyn and his Storm Troopers, the next best thing to a socialist leader and his propaganda team to come along since the 1930s.

Effluent Man
22nd Jan 2018, 09:12
I think Enola Gay would have put in an appearance over Berlin 1945 ish.

Trossie
22nd Jan 2018, 11:55
I'll stick to my original post.

Everything else posted here has been fanciful froth and hot air. Fun maybe, but meaningless.

Pontius Navigator
22nd Jan 2018, 15:26
EM, why? There was a strong pro-German sympathy in the US. The US did not develop the atomic bomb on its own and furthermore had no imperative need so to do.

ThorMos
22nd Jan 2018, 15:55
Whatever the reason certainly many think the UK was ultimately the nation that fared worse as a result of WW2....for example see Stephen Ambrose’s comments in the final episode of the “World at War” series.

Well... i think that countries like (and especially) Poland suffered the most, during and after WW2.

Jetex_Jim
22nd Jan 2018, 17:18
EM, why? There was a strong pro-German sympathy in the US. The US did not develop the atomic bomb on its own and furthermore had no imperative need so to do.

Richard Feynman, in his memoirs of his time on the Manhattan project was certain they were working on a weapon to use against Germany. High command couldn't be sure it would work and D Day etc went ahead.

Effluent Man
22nd Jan 2018, 17:35
By 1945 details of The Holocaust would have leaked out. What better reason/excuse depending upon your viewpoint to test an untried weapon than to incinerate the perpetrators. What would have been interesting is whether the Nazis would have run up the white flag or waited until Munich had been introduced to the stratosphere.

tdracer
22nd Jan 2018, 18:37
But all of that is dependent on Hitler declaring war on the US shortly after the Pearl Harbor attack.
What if he hadn't? What if the US had (only) faced Japan, and the Lindberg lead isolationists and pro German factions had kept the US out of the European war?


For that matter, despite the strong isolationist leanings of much of the US, Roosevelt was fiercely anti-Hitler/Pro Britain and managed to force through things like Lend-Lease. What if Roosevelt hadn't run for re-election in 1940 (apparently it was a close thing - lots of people felt two terms were enough for any president) and whoever took his place was fiercely isolationist - no Lend-Lease, no American protection of British bound convoys? No reason for Hitler to declare war on the US? No need for the US to develop the A-bomb (or develop it first)?


How long would the Soviet Union and Great Britain have lasted against V-2's carrying A-bombs?

Pontius Navigator
22nd Jan 2018, 18:54
Tdr,exactly. The original premise was what if NAZIS had won. It should have been conditional, for instance had GB not declared war on Germany. Had Germany successfully conquered Britain. Had Germany not attacked Russia. Had D Day failed. Had the 8th Army failed.

Jetex_Jim
22nd Jan 2018, 21:04
How long would the Soviet Union and Great Britain have lasted against V-2's carrying A-bombs?

I think getting a first generation A bomb into a V2 would have been quite a feat.

The V2 Amatol warhead weighed 1000kg. Little Boy weighed 4400kg, Fat Man 4700kg.

G-CPTN
22nd Jan 2018, 21:11
I think getting a first generation A bomb into a V2 would have been quite a feat.

The V2 Amatol warhead weighed 1000kg. Little Boy weighed 4400kg, Fat Man 4700kg.
And weren't the Germans short of having a working A bomb?
There were talks of the scientists 'delaying' the research on the grounds of disapproval.

Windy Militant
22nd Jan 2018, 21:22
But if the Germans had invaded Britain would the MAUD committee have been established and would Oliphant have made it to America?
Also would progress on the A9 missile been made as there would have been no raid by the RAF on Peenemünde.....
And no operation Freshman either!
So many divergent timelines eh!

Pali
23rd Jan 2018, 09:36
We could speculate about the means how Germans would (unlikely) win the war and it doesn't stipulate that whole world would be conquered but if they would take control of Europe and Asia we can imagine what would happen.

Their "Sturm und Drang nach Osten" and conquering their "Lebensraum" would mean that Slavic (and other) nations would be thrown into the role of servants, subdued and oppressed. Jews would be murdered, also Roma and others who would not fit into their "ideal" of mankind.

Anybody who would not fit into their allowed model of thinking would be put into labour camps and exterminated after all. George Orwell's 1984 would be quite exact description how such society would operate.

Their "ideals" and "visions" are available to read and study. Actually communism and nazism are not so far away from each other, I can still remember how it felt living under Soviet empire where it was expected that you think and behave uniformly. Just think of present day North Korea regime and replace their ideology with fascism and you are quite close. You are allowed to think freely providing you think the same way like the "Führer" and his camarilla.

Pontius Navigator
23rd Jan 2018, 11:09
Pali, just think, the time period between the start of WW1 and start of WW2 is the same as the end of the Cold War and today. Frightening when considering the World today, almost as if man needs a regular blood letting.

Trossie
23rd Jan 2018, 13:05
Pali, just think, the time period between the start of WW1 and start of WW2 is the same as the end of the Cold War and today. Frightening when considering the World today, almost as if man needs a regular blood letting.

If you think of the Cold War, then in Europe it was what it says on the tin: cold (in a lot of the rest of the world it was very 'hot', though). The world today is actually very peaceful. So what you are really saying is what Steven Ambrose said in the last bit of World at War, that there was a 'civil war' in Europe with a period of truce during the '20s and '30s but since then it has been extremely peaceful. An amazing period of history brought about by the antidote to anything 'Nazi' or the likes: Democracy. History before this was filled with constant 'blood lettings', none as huge as that 'European civil war' but cumulatively extremely damaging to humankind. The tyrannies, warmongers and warlords that have always caused this constant damage to humankind have been in steady decline around the world (except in the Far East) due the the spread of democracy in its various and developing forms. The Nazis were just one of these 'warlord' groups that were never going to mean anything in the long run, other than to give a cause for an increase in momentum to the spread of democracy. Those who oppose the bellicose noises from the warlords in order to protect democracy and its more peaceful way of life should not be confused as being warmongers but rather as realists who see the importance of standing up to those warlords rather than attempting to appease them and cause them to build up false self-importance. That was as important in the '30s as it is now. Standing up firmly against the vassal state of a tyranny is essential to ensure that the message gets across to the tyranny that it will eventually suffer the same fate of all tyrannies in history and that it that they will come to an end, somehow or other. The Nazis were one of those tyrannies that just proved the case. The World today is actually a place where a far greater percentage of the World's population is living in peace, and has good prospects for continued peace, than ever in history. The frequent 'blood letting' of the past is diminishing rapidly! Thanks to that far-from-perfect form of government but the one that is better than all the alternatives: democracy.

Whatever little quirks of history may have tweaked a few temporary different outcomes, in the long run the Nazis were never going to win. The same fate that every other tyranny in history has also suffered, and always will.

chopper2004
23rd Jan 2018, 13:29
America's position was not clear cut. There were strong factions supporting a greater neutrality and other for siding with Germany. Had Japan not attacked, would the US have become a belligerent, notwithstanding the German U-boat aggression pre-Pearl Harbour?

Were there not rumours -of big American corporations supporting / spplying the nazi regime before 41?

Cheers

cavortingcheetah
23rd Jan 2018, 13:40
But the original question postulated the proposition that the Nazis had won. That must therefore be a given historical fact in the context of answering the question itself. Arguments as to whether the Germans could have won the war are not relevant. The answers to the original request for imaginative theories must surely deal, at least in part, with how one might imagine the world with a Nazi European empire instead of a Bruxellian one and whether the individual could imagine himself comfortable and safe in that remarkably similar scenario.
The answer to that hypothetical question seems obvious enough. Europhiles and members of Momentum would presumably be comfortable in an autocratic and centralised European regime while, as a short example, Eurosceptics, coloured people, the rainbow fraternity and those of the Jewish faith might not. I have little doubt that people such as these would have made their way, insofar as was possible, to the United States which would remain, as it always has been, the world's only democratic bastion with the strength of both its peoples and its government sufficient to maintain that state of order.

MrIgor
23rd Jan 2018, 14:27
Let me remember the old story. Imagine early morning at one of German airport. Somebody is calling for start up engines. Tower answers: not yet,and everybody must speak English! Somebody tells, I'm German,in my native town, why I have to speak English? At that very moment somebody from somewhere says in clear English:"Because you lost WW2..."

Mac the Knife
23rd Jan 2018, 20:15
"It was Britain which declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland. What if we hadn’t?"

Well, it is a bit like saying, "It was Britain which declared war on Germany after Belgiums' neutrality was breached. What if we hadn’t?".

There were quite a few people in Britain who were vehemently opposed to intervention in WW1. Wilhelm II (eldest grandchild of Queen Victoria ) was very upset when Britain declared war over such a trifle. It was not at all what he expected as a result of his giving carte blanche to Austria/Hungary to attack Serbia. The Germans thought that just crossing a small corner of Belgium would be overlooked.

But to come back to the original question, nothing much (at least initially, they called it the "Phoney War"). France fell, Poland fell, Denmark was invaded, Czechoslovakia fell, Austria was annexed in the Anschluß, and Hitler was the master of Europe and sooner or later, if unchecked, of the Mediterranean, North Africa and the Suez Canal. The question is, could England afford to permit this?

And the very obvious answer is no, it could not. Chamberlain, the Great Appeaser, whimpered, "How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war."

Yet by ignoring the almost immediate violations of Versailles, accepting the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, the Anschluß, the annexation of the Sudetenland and etc., we brought it upon ourselves. . .

Mac

SARF
23rd Jan 2018, 20:33
The French should have piled in while the Germans were busy in Poland ..
set up camp on the banks of the Rhine

Trossie
23rd Jan 2018, 20:48
The French fought the British more frequently than they fought the Germans from 1940 to 1944.

The "what if the Nazis had won?" question is something that many seem to want to stick to, even though it was impossible from the start.

So OK, let's say that they won a bit more than they did (even invaded Britain?). They would have caused a huge amount more damage than they did, then they would have collapsed. In the process they probably would have caused a lot more of Europe to come under the tyranny of the USSR. For a while. I suspect that the western Europeans (especially those west of La Manche) would have been far more of a hassle for the Soviets to deal with than what they experienced from the eastern Europeans who were far more used to being overrun and having foreign 'masters' and this may have caused the USSR to collapse earlier than it did.

Which ever way, the Nazis were never going to be able to sustain any 'win'.

I remember at about the time of the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain flying into Germany to an airport that had a German Air Force base nearby and the German Air Force aircraft leaving there, when contacting the civilian ATC unit, were speaking to German ATC in English. i thought at the time that it would have been marvellous to have been able to put a crystal ball in front of Herman Goering 70 years earlier and say to him "What are you fighting about?"!!

Mac the Knife
23rd Jan 2018, 21:23
Pontius Navigator asks: "EM, why? There was a strong pro-German sympathy in the US. The US did not develop the atomic bomb on its own and furthermore had no imperative need so to do."

There was a significant amount of sympathy towards Germany in the US in 1914, but far less in 1938, even allowing for Charles Lindbergh.

That an atomic bomb was feasible became known in 1939, when Lise Meitner, Otto Hahn and Otto Frisch realised that sustained atomic fission was possible and would lead to the release of unbelievable amounts of energy. Their work was published shortly afterwards.

Every atomic researcher in the world immediately understood that an atomic bomb was at least theoretically a possibility.

American scientists were no exception. At the time, Germany, Britain and the USA had been the world leaders in atomic research, although there were small groups in other countries. With the expulsion of Jewish scientists from their posts in Germany, most fled to Britain or the USA, leaving a small core of loyalists in the Reich. Germany had "blown its brains out".

Nobody had the slightest doubt, in the early days of the war, that if atomic fission could be weaponised that Hitler and Germany would hesitate to use it. It therefore became imperative for America to investigate this and, if it were possible, to develop such a device.

America indeed did not develop the atomic bomb on its own - Frisch and Peierls at the University of Birmingham worked out the critical mass of U235 to be around 10kg - a deliverable weapon. I will not bore you with the interesting details, but Britain conveyed these calculations to the Americans and in 1942 the Manhattan Project was born, approved with laconic, "OK FDR" scrawled on the proposal.

Some of the scientists were Hans Bethe, John Van Vleck, Edward Teller, Emil Konopinski, Robert Serber, Stan Frankel, Eldred C. Nelson, Emilio Segrè, Felix Bloch, Franco Rasetti, John Henry Manley, Glenn Seaborg, Enrico Fermi, Robert Oppenheimer, Niels Bohr, Otto Frisch, Klaus Fuchs, Rudolf Peierls, and Ernest Titterton and Edwin McMillan. They tentatively confirmed that a fission bomb was theoretically possible.

That Manhattan Project, culminating in Trinity, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, cost $1.89Bn (equivalent to $20.5Bn 2017 dollars), roughly equivalent to 9 days of wartime spending.

But what of the German A-bomb? The Uranverein started in 1939, but it was decided that weaponised fission was too theoretical to be worthwhile and the project and funding was divided among nine independent groups. Although there were several attempts at building a reactor, none successfully achieved criticality and a bomb was never on the cards.

"...had no imperative need so to do." - indeed, but the USA/UK did not know that, and with the success of the A4 rocket and the possibility of the intercontinental A10, no-one could afford to take the chance.

Would you have done?

Mac

rigpiggy
23rd Jan 2018, 21:42
Were there not rumours -of big American corporations supporting / spplying the nazi regime before 41?

Cheers

Ford Motor Company refused to build the Merlin under license, packard was then tasked with it. No Merlin, No Mustang"or a least a much reduced performer"

Jetex_Jim
23rd Jan 2018, 21:50
Ford Motor Company refused to build the Merlin under license, packard was then tasked with it. No Merlin, No Mustang"or a least a much reduced performer"
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/48838.IBM_and_the_Holocaust

Thomas Watson, founder of IBM, supplied the Nazi regime with Hollerith punchcard material which was a direct contributor to the Holocaust.

All the records of baptism were punched up and automatic card sorting was used to identify those of Jewish blood. Candidates for the death camps were ranked by how pure their Jewish blood was.

Historians were amazed at the speed & accuracy with which the Nazis were able to identify & locate European Jewry. Until now, the pieces of this puzzle have never been fully assembled. The fact is, IBM technology was used to organize nearly everything in Germany & then Nazi Europe, from the identification of the Jews in censuses, registrations & ancestral tracing programs to the running of railroads & organizing of concentration camp slave labor. IBM & its German subsidiary custom-designed complex solutions, anticipating the Reich's needs. They didn't merely sell the machines & walk away. Instead, IBM leased these machines for high fees & became the sole source of the billions of punch cards needed.

WhatsaLizad?
24th Jan 2018, 01:44
Jetex Jim,


Good post. And exactly why I support a robust 2nd Amendment in the USA, despite it's faults. Governments can go out of control. (I have no interest in another gun thread).

Pali
24th Jan 2018, 06:08
Would be interesting to know which banks helped Hitler to finance his preparations and war itself.

And I doubt that IBM would know what was the exact aim of German administration in using their computers. I would rather follow the bankers...

KelvinD
24th Jan 2018, 06:39
To go back to the original question; they may well have found life difficult here in the UK. Talking to a WW2 veteran some years ago, he told me of an exchange between Churchill and a German politician, some time after the end of the war. The German told Churchill that the problem with Britain was we are a militaristic nation. Churchill replied we are not militaristic but certainly a warlike nation. He explained himself by pointing out how Germans, by nature, are prepared to fall in and follow even unpleasant leaders, as long as they are rigid in their governance, whereas if a British government tried to enforce a similar sort of system, the people would be up in arms and throw the buggers out! We don't like to be governed. On the other hand, if someone from elsewhere tries to tell us what we must do, then the warlike option is natural.
A bit like during my time in the Army, we of the Royal Signals were constantly fighting "Tankies" but the moment someone from outside the Army poked their noses in, we were instantly united.

Hempy
24th Jan 2018, 07:16
Would be interesting to know which banks helped Hitler to finance his preparations and war itself.

And I doubt that IBM would know what was the exact aim of German administration in using their computers. I would rather follow the bankers...

Read ‘IBM and the Holocaust’ by Edwin Black and you might change your mind on that. To be fair though, even though he had intimate knowledge of every aspect of his business, Thomas J Watson didn’t finance the Nazis, he just profited from them.

If you want to talk about banks who funded the Nazis, look at names like the Bank of England, the US Federal Reserve, and (at the time) the worlds largest private investment bank, Union Banking Corporation - owned by no other than Brown Brothers Harriman and ran by one Prescott Bush...

mickjoebill
24th Jan 2018, 08:59
The movie, “The darkest hour” is of interest to this thread.

The portrayal of how close the UK came to agreeing terms is rarely scripted.


Mjb

Jetex_Jim
24th Jan 2018, 09:09
Would be interesting to know which banks helped Hitler to finance his preparations and war itself.

And I doubt that IBM would know what was the exact aim of German administration in using their computers. I would rather follow the bankers...

At the time there were no general purpose computers. The data was gathered on punch cards and then sorted by various parameters using custom designed hardware.

rog747
24th Jan 2018, 09:28
the little bit of water saved us back then

Hempy
24th Jan 2018, 09:32
The portrayal of how close the UK came to agreeing terms is rarely scripted.


Mjb

Nor indeed is how close the USSR came to offering terms to Hitler in 1941. According to Zhukov, the Bulgarian Ambassador Ivan Stamenov was approached to act as a mediator but he refused, stating ‘even if you retreat to the Urals, you’ll still win in the end’.

ORAC
24th Jan 2018, 09:44
An amazing period of history brought about by the antidote to anything 'Nazi' or the likes: Democracy. Annoying as it may be to some, Hitler was democratically appointment as Chancellor by President Hindenberg in accordance with the German constitution of the day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power#Seizure_of_control_(1931–1933 )

.....”Hindenburg reluctantly agreed to appoint Hitler as chancellor after the parliamentary elections of July and November 1932 had not resulted in the formation of a majority government. Hitler headed a short-lived coalition government formed by the NSDAP and the German National People's Party (DNVP).

On 30 January 1933, the new cabinet was sworn in during a brief ceremony in Hindenburg's office. The NSDAP gained three posts: Hitler was named chancellor, Wilhelm Frick Minister of the Interior, and Hermann Göring, Minister Without Portfolio (and Minister of the Interior for Prussia).[70][71] The SA and SS-led torchlit parades throughout Berlin. It is this event that would become termed Hitler's Machtergreifung ("seizure of power") The term was originally used by some Nazis to suggest a revolutionary process,[72] though Hitler, and others, used the word Machtübernahme ("take-over of power"), reflecting that the transfer of power took place within the existing constitutional framework[72] and suggesting that the process was legal.[73][74]

Papen was to serve as Vice-Chancellor in a majority conservative Cabinet – still falsely believing that he could "tame" Hitler.[53]..........”

Trossie
24th Jan 2018, 10:03
Annoying as it may be to some, Hitler was democratically appointment as Chancellor by President Hindenberg in accordance with the German constitution of the day. Absolutely true.

But the Nazis did not maintain that democracy for long. That, in the 'modern' world (early 20th Century and onward), was the beginning of their downfall.

Move on the next step to the Cold War and it was the democracies that eventually won.

The same will ultimately happen in the Far East.

Democracies may throw up their occasional stupidities, but by their nature they have the ability to adapt to the changing circumstances that they find themselves in. They have the flexibility and imagination to survive. Tyrannies, like Nazism, are all too rigid and as the world around them alters, they crack up and fail.

Mac the Knife
24th Jan 2018, 14:41
The Reichstag Fire Decree (Reichstagsbrandverordnung) which took away from German citizens most of their civil liberties, was passed on 28th February 1933.

The Enabling Act (Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich) was passed on 24th March the same year and gave Hitler and the Nazis complete plenary powers.

The Democratic (sic.) German government, civil service, courts and legal system were effectively neutered and took little further part in what followed. In fact many disappeared into the "Nacht und Nebel".

Mac

ORAC
24th Jan 2018, 16:33
Equally interesting question - what if Hitler had not declared war on Germany the day after Pearl Harbor in support of Japan? Would the USA have just turned their attention west and left the UK to fight on without their support?

chuks
24th Jan 2018, 17:09
Actually, Hitler did have a choice. The treaty with Japan bound Germany to enter a war on its side if Japan were attacked. As it was, Japan declared war on the USA, leaving Germany free to join the war on Japan's side or not.

The German U-boat war was already taking place just off the East Coast of the USA, plus the USS Reuben James had been sunk on 31 October 1941 by a U-boat while escorting a convoy to the UK. A state of war thus already existed between the USA and Germany to some practical extent prior to Hitler's formal declaration of war.

According to what I've read, Hitler thought that the USA was going to declare war on Germany anyway, so that he wanted the propaganda value of being the first to declare war. As with so many things, we are reduced to guessing what he was up to then, what he was thinking.

There's a joke about a young officer being shown a map of the world showing how small Germany was compared to the USA, when he asked "Has anyone told the Führer?" That's the sort of joke that could see you hanging from a meat hook in a Gestapo cellar if you were caught telling it, so that it might be just one of those post-war things, like the way the villagers claim that everyone pissed on their "Hitler Oak" until the sapling died.

ORAC
24th Jan 2018, 17:54
Why Hitler Declared War on the United States | HistoryNet (http://www.historynet.com/hitler-declared-war-united-states.htm)

Mac the Knife
24th Jan 2018, 19:35
Good find ORAC! If I may quote from your excellent reference:

"From the perspective of half a century, one can see an additional unintended consequence of Pearl Harbor for the Germans. It not only meant that they would most certainly be defeated. It also meant that the active coalition against them would include the United States as well as Great Britain, its dominions, the Free French, various governments-in-exile, and the Soviet Union. Aid [should be "And"] without U.S. participation, there could have been no massive invasion of northwest Europe; the Red Army eventually might have reached the English Channel and the Atlantic, overrunning all Germany in the process. If the Germans today enjoy both their freedom and their unity in a country aligned and allied with what their leaders of 1941 considered the degenerate Western democracies, they owe it in part to the disastrous cupidity and stupidity of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor."

Mac

rotornut
24th Jan 2018, 20:08
English translation of the enabling act - seems pretty innocuous but Hitler was the "government of the Reich".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich

The Reichstag has enacted the following law, which is hereby proclaimed with the assent of the Reichsrat, it having been established that the requirements for a constitutional amendment have been fulfilled:

Article 1
In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich. This includes the laws referred to by Articles 85 Paragraph 2 and Article 87 of the constitution.[12]

Article 2
Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain unaffected.

Article 3
Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Reich government.

Article 4
Treaties of the Reich with foreign states, which relate to matters of Reich legislation, shall for the duration of the validity of these laws not require the consent of the legislative authorities. The Reich government shall enact the legislation necessary to implement these agreements.

Article 5
This law enters into force on the day of its proclamation. It expires on April 1, 1937; it expires furthermore if the present Reich government is replaced by another.

chuks
24th Jan 2018, 22:24
There's a story from the Ardennes Offensive (the Battle of the Bulge) about the Germans having captured an American supply dump. A German officer, nosing around, found a cake that some mother in the States had sent to her son in the Army, when that cake had made its way clear out to the Belgian border with Germany.

He understood then that the Germans were screwed, being up against a country that might be inferior in its fighting ability (the calculus was that it took four American soldiers to match one German soldier) but that had such tremendous wealth and power that they could manage to send a cake all the way to the front.

There was a German armored column in that offensive that reached a crossroads, when they turned one way instead of the other, being out in the middle of nowhere anyway. If they had gone in the other direction they would have found a big fuel dump just a few miles down the road. As it was, they ground to a halt, out of fuel, not long afterwards. History is made of things such as that.

meadowrun
25th Jan 2018, 07:08
I've heard that story.
The other story is that no matter what turning they might have made, even the fortuitous one would only have given them a brief respite.
The tsunami of American over-whelming manufacturing force and manpower, set in motion years ago, was still moving east, still roaring down on what was left of German forces.
Drowning was inevitable.

Hempy
25th Jan 2018, 07:30
I've heard that story.
The other story is that no matter what turning they might have made, even the fortuitous one would only have given them a brief respite.
The tsunami of American over-whelming manufacturing force and manpower, set in motion years ago, was still moving east, still roaring down on what was left of German forces.
Drowning was inevitable.

It should be remembered that the Soviet troops rolled into Berlin in Ford and Studebaker trucks, wearing GI boots, eating Spam from Minesotta and wheat from Kansas. About the only western assistance the Russians turned their noses up at were Spitfires (which only goes to prove that they were, as accused, Godless fkn heathens..)

Trossie
25th Jan 2018, 11:29
There's a story from the Ardennes Offensive (the Battle of the Bulge) about the Germans having captured an American supply dump. A German officer, nosing around, found a cake that some mother in the States had sent to her son in the Army, when that cake had made its way clear out to the Belgian border with Germany.

He understood then that the Germans were screwed, being up against a country that might be inferior in its fighting ability (the calculus was that it took four American soldiers to match one German soldier) but that had such tremendous wealth and power that they could manage to send a cake all the way to the front.
... ...Go and visit any of the extremely good museums in Normandy, read books like 'Pacific' (from the TV series, plus a whole lot) and see how extremely well equipped the US and Allied troops were and how superb their logistical back-up was (the day after the D-Day landings a fully functioning transport airfield was feeding supplies into Normandy, 12 days after the landings two entirely new harbours were in place for landing huge quantities of supplies; in the Pacific, although not concentrated in one spectacularly huge event as D-Day, the scales of logistics were similar.) The Nazis and the Japanese war-lords could never win when up against that.

One of those inconvenient truths in history is that every time someone has attempted to rule Europe, those irritating Brits have said "No you don't" and even thought they may have appeared outnumbered and (to those viewing it from the Continent) insignificant, they have always 'stuck to their guns' and those attempts to rule Europe have been dashed as a direct result of that resistance from the Brits. Plus ça change!!

rog747
25th Jan 2018, 12:49
Quote:
the little bit of water saved us back then
Sadly, no.


There were two reasons why Hitler did not pursue nukes.

Firstly, there had been a miscalculation of the size, by one or two orders of magnitude, of the size of a bomb to obtain critical mass.

Perhaps more importantly, there was an ideolological side. Hitler regarded nuclear science as what he called "jew science", ie unreliable and untrustworthy.

Even if Kirk Douglas hadn't sacrificed the lives of those civilians on the ferry, the D2O could not have been used to build a 'bomb' as it was of crap quality (<1% purity) and there really wasn't a German equivalent of the Manhattan Project anyway.

the bit of water that saved Blighty back then has nowt to do with AH thinking of getting nukes - I think many of you have gone way off track

Trossie
25th Jan 2018, 13:48
One of the primary things that helped the NorskieFroggie people in 1066, was that the 'locals' were a bit knackered after having beaten the NorskieDanskie people 'oop north' only a short while before and then had to leg it 'dahn sahth' to take on the NorskieFroggie people. (Pesky Norskies!!)

And yes, technology has moved on! Just one Flight of Spitfires or Hurricanes would have given the 'locals' a distinct advantage over the NorskieFroggie people!!

The NorskieFroggie people were a bit tyrannical until some of their barons hit back with a Big Charter that created the basis for the democracy that Nazi tyranny eventually banged its head against, and lost.

Yes, that bit of water that formed with a massive erosion of geological links between what is now Britain and what is now mainland Europe over 6,000 years ago (neither had names then!) and with the steady erosion of the east coast of Britain, that rift is widening. So it's not just political, it's also geological!

sitigeltfel
25th Jan 2018, 14:09
Ah! That bit of water.

Didn't stop the NorskieFroggie people in 1066 and all that, though I grant you that the technological challenges were rather different in 1940.

People seem to forget the more recent invasion by the OrangeyCloggie people in 1688!

Fareastdriver
25th Jan 2018, 14:18
It should be remembered that the Soviet troops rolled into Berlin in Ford and Studebaker

With the manufacturers names ground out and all traces of their manufacturing ancestry removed and replaced with Soviet brand names.

Trossie
25th Jan 2018, 14:30
People seem to forget the more recent invasion by the OrangeyCloggie people in 1688!"Invasion" or "invitation"?

Another case of someone a bit too 'tyrannical' (James and his Jeffreys thug) banging his head against the evolving democracy that has from then onward been such a thorn in the side of tyrants in Europe. It was due to that invitation that the OrangeyCloggie ended up getting help from the Brits (under that able command of one of Winston's ancestors) that put paid to the first of the Froggie people to try to take over too much of Europe and hence starting a pattern of the Brits repeatedly helping to save Europe from itself for centuries to come.

Which was one of the main reasons why the Nazis could never win.

pax britanica
25th Jan 2018, 14:42
Well the Daily Mail would have been happy if Hitler had won -they loved him.

Seriously i think Germany could have dominated things for a while- not enough Germans? Britain ruled a lot of the world with a lot fewer people even if they didnt have guns and we did.

Without the channel (and of course the Royal Navy we were toast but as we were able to retain air superiority over that small area we were able to regroup until Hitler set off eastwards. Of course would he have done that if he had invaded Uk, and how many people in UK would have been reasonably relaxed about rule from Berlin many more than we like to think thats for sure.

USA would have stayed out of it due to prevailing isolationist views at the time.

however Europe is very small on global terms but extremely diverse and after say 50 years would German ethnicity be very diluted by inevitable liaisons between occupiers and occupied many of whom are Aryan nations anyway. Leading to a sort of western europe land Germany UK France, Italy Spain Low coutries and Scandis plus the Austrians Swiss and Czechs getting on for 250M people , kind of treating the eastern Slavs and Balkans as second class but Europeans . That could be quite a formidable group and its probably true that by and large those people would not have been unduly upset by transportation of Jews, Gypsies/Roma , social misfits .

A three power world USA USSR and EU(1941) the latter including some of Britains colonies isnt too hard to envision is it

It is of course 80 years since Munich this year and so speculation is likely to be rife. After all what would have happened if Chamberlain instead of giving the Sudetenland ( which militarily castrated the Czechs as thats where all the border defences were (many of them formidable) to the Nazis, told Czech PM Benes to stand firm . The Czechs had a large extremely well equipped army and had the brits and french threatened the Rhineland would the german generals have done away with Hitler ? they had advised him earlier not to go to war with Czechoslovakia because of excessive losses so they might have.

But in the end who knows what might have happened =nobody

Pontius Navigator
25th Jan 2018, 15:32
On the matter of manpower to manage the Reich, remember the Romans used native forces and would deploy them to other regions. The Soviet Union also mixed up unit composition across the republic to avoid conflicting loyalties. The East Germans also rotated border guards to avoid collusion.

In the Reich many units were created from non-Gernan troops. There is no reason to suppose that there would have been many non-Germans willing to serve in the peacetime German army as there would be plenty of benefits.

As for resistance, without external support it would never have been as strong as the Maquis or Yugoslav Partisans.

chuks
25th Jan 2018, 15:49
Would you believe that in the late stages of the war there even were Jews serving in the SS? Conscripts, I assume, but ... Jews. I assume that they swore that oath to Hitler, even, given the alternative.

Hempy
25th Jan 2018, 16:28
On the matter of manpower to manage the Reich, remember the Romans used native forces and would deploy them to other regions. The Soviet Union also mixed up unit composition across the republic to avoid conflicting loyalties. The East Germans also rotated border guards to avoid collusion.

In the Reich many units were created from non-Gernan troops. There is no reason to suppose that there would have been many non-Germans willing to serve in the peacetime German army as there would be plenty of benefits.

As for resistance, without external support it would never have been as strong as the Maquis or Yugoslav Partisans.

It is estimated that around 50,000 Russians were captured with the Sixth Army at Stalingrad, along with Bulgarians, Romanians and Italians. The last active fighting unit in the defence or Berlin was 300 Frenchmen from the Charlemagne Battalion of the SS Nordland Division. One of, if not the last recipient of the Knights Cross was a Parisian named Henri Fenet.

Hitler in particular and the Nazis in general appealed to a lot of fascits and other right wing adherants throughout Europe...the Waffen SS included approximately 40,000 Belgians, 6,000 Norwegians, 20,000 French, 6,000 Danes, 3,000 Fins, 55,000 Dutch. There were dedicated Waffen SS units for Italians, Spanish, Croatians, Yugoslavs, Hungarians, Russians and many more. The was even the SS Britisches Freikorps..

It’s also important to remember that a slave labour force totalling millions was stolen from the occupied territories which allowed the Germans to totally mobilise the vast majority of their home grown, Aryan blooded Supermen for military service while still maintaining an adequate labour force for a war exonomy

Pontius Navigator
25th Jan 2018, 18:27
Hempy, thank you for the detail, it just reinforces the point that there would be sufficient indigenous support without over reaching German resources.

Mac the Knife
25th Jan 2018, 19:02
"A three power world USA USSR and EU(1941) the latter including some of Britains colonies isnt too hard to envision is it"

Well, one Bismarck's plans was for a Confederation of Europeans States led by Germany - which is what he got, albeit about 100 years too late for him.

Interesting man - he strongly opposed the annexation of Alsace/Lorraine after the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 because, he said, "It will make France our enemy forever".

He also wrote, "The real grievance of the worker is the insecurity of his existence; he is not sure that he will always have work, he is not sure that he will always be healthy, and he foresees that he will one day be old and unfit to work. If he falls into poverty, even if only through a prolonged illness, he is then completely helpless, left to his own devices, and society does not currently recognize any real obligation towards him beyond the usual help for the poor, even if he has been working all the time ever so faithfully and diligently. The usual help for the poor, however, leaves a lot to be desired, especially in large cities, where it is very much worse than in the country."

He introduced sickness insurance, accident insurance, disability insurance, and a retirement pension, all unheard of at the time. Admittedly there were more to get people to support the government than humanitarian feelings, but it makes ya' think!

Very smart feller, some patient (knowing of my interest in history) gave me his voluminous Memoirs, which are worth a read (just don't take it all at face value . . .)

Mac

Argonautical
10th Feb 2018, 15:38
The Freeview TV station Yesterday, is starting a documentary series about this very topic. It is called NAZI VICTORY: THE POST-WAR PLAN and starts on Thursday 15th Feb at 20:00 hrs.

racedo
10th Feb 2018, 21:51
If Nazis has invaded UK then give it 4-5 weeks before it was pretty much all over.

After the wiping out of the undesireable and the Estblishment would have been so in favour of it to protect their skins then life would continue as normal inside 1-2 years.

There would have been some minor resistance after capitulation but it would have been an irritant and put down hard as people got on with their lives.

Haraka
11th Feb 2018, 11:17
racedo
Although it is many years ago now (1962) I was a junior Grammar School boy in a big town , taught by WW 2 veterans, when the "What if?" invasion question was raised by our very respected History Master.
After an hour of discussion, the general consensus was that ,after a couple of very nasty years, things could well have eventually settled down to a "not too bad" status.
As a more general observation, I think that History shows us that the invader,generally over time, eventually (to a degree at least) gets subverted by the " subjugated".

Pontius Navigator
11th Feb 2018, 12:11
Haraka, regardless of what we think of the European countries that were defeated, Britain would have been subjected to similar 'collective reprisals'. While the British Resistance might have operated without regard for reprisals they would have run out of supplies and been hunted down, betrayed, and eliminated. Only the RN and RAF enabled European resistance to survive.

Trossie
11th Feb 2018, 17:40
If Nazis has invaded UK then give it 4-5 weeks before it was pretty much all over.

After the wiping out of the undesireable and the Estblishment would have been so in favour of it to protect their skins then life would continue as normal inside 1-2 years.

There would have been some minor resistance after capitulation but it would have been an irritant and put down hard as people got on with their lives.

If the Nazis had invaded the UK that would have ensured the ultimate defeat of Nazi-ism although probably a little later than when it actually happened.

The UK population can be very awkward for a British government, it would have been a real pain in the @rse for a German occupying government. Trying to govern the western reaches of their occupation from Stornoway to Killarney (the whole of Ireland would have been occupied) would have been difficult as there just weren't enough bad Germans to carry all of that out as well as invade Russia. With the British gone Stalin would not have been able to discount intelligence about the impending Operation Barbarossa as 'British intelligence deception' and would have been more prepared for it, making Germany's initial advances far more difficult.

America would have defeated Japan a lot earlier as they would not have had the distraction of involvement in the European war at the same time.

The Nazi would eventually have been beaten, probably a bit later than eventually happened. From Svalbard through the Ring of Kerry to Cabo de São Vicente, the primary language would have been русский. (The Soviets would have made full use of the opportunity of being right up to his border to settle '1930s scores' with Franco.) Thousands of western Europeans who idolised the Soviets readily would have aided them with this expansion. Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon would have been executed for attempting to stir up nationalism in the European extension of the CCCP. Likewise Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. (Although both their respective organisations initially would have prospered under the Nazis as an aid to bringing about the collapse of 'English' Britain.)

The Soviet Union would still have collapsed, although probably a decade or two later than it actually did. Europe now would be attempting to build up its newly capitalist economies with assistance from the very strong and wealthy USA. Britain would be leading the way in Europe with this, having more of a tradition of capitalism and trade in its past although much of this would be forgotten and having to be re-learnt by the new generation; it would have been a 'Second Restoration' for Britain but a bit more painful although with greater growth than 350 years earlier.

Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell would be disgraced ex-politicians (possibly in jail) for their part in the ruling regime during the final years of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Britain.

The European Union would never have existed.

I wonder if we would still be looking at a Moon with footprints on it? I suspect so though, because I think that the 'space race' would still have gone ahead.

racedo
11th Feb 2018, 21:53
If the Nazis had invaded the UK that would have ensured the ultimate defeat of Nazi-ism although probably a little later than when it actually happened.

The UK population can be very awkward for a British government, it would have been a real pain in the @rse for a German occupying government..

It is good you believe it but likely far from reality.

UK population has shown no history of resitance to an invader for centurys.

UK establishment who really run the country would have been quietly bought off or eliminated, hence within weeks they would have fallen in line.

The people who fought the British Govt were the Anti fascists and socialists in the 20'sand 30's while Moseley nd the right wingers including Royal British Legion were happily in bed with Hitlers people. UK establishment happy they eliminated and would be bought off easily.

racedo
11th Feb 2018, 21:58
Haraka, regardless of what we think of the European countries that were defeated, Britain would have been subjected to similar 'collective reprisals'. While the British Resistance might have operated without regard for reprisals they would have run out of supplies and been hunted down, betrayed, and eliminated. Only the RN and RAF enabled European resistance to survive.


RAF would have ceased to exist in weeks as supplies and replacements would be gone once landing had occurred.

RN likewise have no home ports other than Canada.

Mr Oleo Strut
11th Feb 2018, 22:20
So, what if the Nazis had won WW2? Many of us would be dead or not even born. The Americans would probably have appeased the Nazis, and the Japanese. Eventually, the Nazis would have succumbed under the sheer weight of numbers opposing them but it might have taken 30 years or so, during which time nuclear weapons would have been developed on all sides, and probably used more than they have been. Loads of the rich and powerful would have fled to the US leaving the rest of us at the mercy of the Nazis and their collaborators. Thank goodness it didn't happen, and thank goodness for the EU helping to achieve peace and prosperity.

air pig
11th Feb 2018, 22:55
I call bullocks on that - there are any number of 'what if's' that could have changed the whole outcome, not the least of which being that the UK/Churchill didn't back down so when the US entered the war they had access to bases in Europe. Can you imagine the logistical nightmare of D-Day launched from North America instead of the UK?
Heck even Hitler declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor made a massive difference - he did it because he wanted Japan to declare war on the Soviets - which of course they didn't do. If Hitler had known, it's quite possible he wouldn't have declared war on the US for some time - giving him more time to subdue Britain.
I've read several books by some of the German generals - and there is a common thread - they think (or at least imply) that if Hitler had let the generals operating in Russia do what they thought was best, it was possible to defeat Stalin (note that early in Barbarossa, the Germans were greeted as liberators - it wasn't until the SS showed up and started their atrocities that the locals turned against the Germans). As it was, even with a number of Hitler dumbass (e.g. Stalingrad) Soviet losses outnumbered German by ~10 to 1. Without some of Hitler's interference, that number might have been 20 to 1 or higher - it's questionable if even the Soviets could have withstood that level of losses.
Yes, at some point it became impossible for Germany to win, but that wasn't the case in 1941.

In 1941 Hitler made three strategic errors, he went into North africa and the Balkans to bail out the Italians and invaded Russia all in short order. Going from a war on three fronts against Great Britain, the war in the atlantic and in the air and the logistics capabilitys

Highway1
11th Feb 2018, 22:56
With the British gone Stalin would not have been able to discount intelligence about the impending Operation Barbarossa as 'British intelligence deception' and would have been more prepared for it, making Germany's initial advances far more difficult.

America would have defeated Japan a lot earlier as they would not have had the distraction of involvement in the European war at the same time.


Without support from the UK and US its highly unlikely that Russia could have defeated the Germans on their own. Also without the allied air war in the West Germany wouldnt have needed the 15,000 88 mm flak guns and 1 million men that the allied air forces tied up in the defence of the Reich - all these resources could have been turned on Russia.

Pontius Navigator
12th Feb 2018, 08:23
Racedo, I was alluding to European resistance needing the RN and RAF, not that they would have been a viable force post invasion.

Trossie suggests Ireland would have been occupied. Remember Ireland was neutral and in many instances neutral friendly to Germany. Only its position behind UK compromised that. Offered a united Ireland wounded they have resisted? Of course many did by joining the British forces both during and after the war.

Krystal n chips
12th Feb 2018, 09:43
Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon would have been executed for attempting to stir up nationalism in the European extension of the CCCP. Likewise Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. (Although both their respective organisations initially would have prospered under the Nazis as an aid to bringing about the collapse of 'English' Britain.)

The Soviet Union would still have collapsed, although probably a decade or two later than it actually did. Europe now would be attempting to build up its newly capitalist economies with assistance from the very strong and wealthy USA. Britain would be leading the way in Europe with this, having more of a tradition of capitalism and trade in its past although much of this would be forgotten and having to be re-learnt by the new generation; it would have been a 'Second Restoration' for Britain but a bit more painful although with greater growth than 350 years earlier.

Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell would be disgraced ex-politicians (possibly in jail) for their part in the ruling regime during the final years of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Britain.

The European Union would never have existed.



You know, that sounds remarkably like some form of contemporaneous wishful thinking based on pure hypothesis than it does possible reality.

Do you really think any of those mentioned would have become the prominent political figures they currently are ?

sitigeltfel
12th Feb 2018, 15:50
Robert Harris fatherland,good read I thought.

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned it, but CJ Sansom's depiction of the UK under Nazi rule makes for good, if depressing reading. His casting of Enoch Powell as a collaborator is a bit wide of the mark though.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15770927-dominion

Sansom is better known for his "Shardlake" series featuring the trials and tribulations of a barrister during the reign of Henry VIII.

meadowrun
12th Feb 2018, 16:15
depiction of the UK under Nazi rule makes for good, if depressing reading


Jeez, Can anyone think of one good thing that could ever come of something like that?


Pls, no one mention anything to do with trains.

SARF
12th Feb 2018, 16:34
The U.K. and Germany make terms in 1940..
the U.K. buys into,the nazi program.
The Americans trash the japs in half the time
The germans dispatch the Russians and own all,of Eastern Europe .
The German U.K. alliance develop jet power way ahead of the rest of the world
U.K. innovation coupled with German industry gets things done .
The nazi outlook gets other countries in line or trashed
The Middle East is occupied by the all new German U.K. alliance

Europe is the global economic and political power house all the way to Cape Town
America sticks to its patch And we all wait for China to get up to speed for spectacular ww3

meadowrun
12th Feb 2018, 17:13
And the watchers standing off at apogee in LEO watching the Mercedes-Cadillac Cabriolet go by, say:


"Right, Murgatroyd, there's no hope for this lot. Better start up the planet bleacher."

Pontius Navigator
12th Feb 2018, 17:52
SARF, once lectured by a German in Berlin (1990) saying we were on the wrong side in the war. Togethger we could have ruled the World.

The combined British German fleets would have ruled the seas. The British carriers with their armoured flight decks were superior to the US ones. Remember when a Japanese Kamikazi hit Victorious the debris was just pushed over the side and she carried on.

Highway1
12th Feb 2018, 18:06
SARF, once lectured by a German in Berlin (1990) saying we were on the wrong side in the war. Togethger we could have ruled the World.



Hope you told him, been there, done that..;)

racedo
12th Feb 2018, 18:34
Racedo, I was alluding to European resistance needing the RN and RAF, not that they would have been a viable force post invasion.

Trossie suggests Ireland would have been occupied. Remember Ireland was neutral and in many instances neutral friendly to Germany. Only its position behind UK compromised that. Offered a united Ireland wounded they have resisted? Of course many did by joining the British forces both during and after the war.

As someone who has happily studied history of Ireland I have struggled to find ANY history of Ireland being neutral friendly to Germany.

Allied fliers handed back across border, Germans interned for duration, Allied use of Irish territory, Germans not. UK supplied with food, zilch to Germany.

Irish govt had military attaches working with UK Govt, none with Germany.

Friend fom County Tipperary showed me one of 2 huge areas earmarked for airbases in event of invasion of UK. Irish Govt put huge fences across it at request of RAF to prevent use by Nazis but there were numerous ones.

UK signals using Irish headlands as way of triangulation of signals from U -boats.

Ireland was neutral and ensured German legation kept to neutrality while overlooking UK forces.

US Ambassador Grey insisted Irish Govt was actively helping Nazi's, he deduced it by seances he had, however 2-3 OSS (CIA) forerunners were also in Ireland independent of him and their detailed reports showed otherwise.

UK admiralty concluded that benefit of having Irish ports was not justified as would have needed to spread its anti aircraft detachments even further and Irish infrastructure couldn't have coped.

Pontius Navigator
12th Feb 2018, 19:10
Racedo, fair enough though I did hear of a German submarine crew in a bar with British internees. Not sure how true that was.

I do know that some RAF were interned. An RAF officer was on parole, broke his parole and escaped to the north. He was returned to the south.

larssnowpharter
12th Feb 2018, 19:21
Thanks for putting the record straight Vis a Vis Ireland, Racedo.
My father was a Sgt pilot in the Irish Army from 1942 - 1947. His view of it at the time was that Ireland was of more use to the UK as a neutral country. Incidentally, he flew: Tiger Moths, Magisters, Lysanders, Hurricanes and Seafires. One assumes the British government of the day saw fit to give/lend/sell these in the belief that, if required, they would be used to support the cause.

The old boy went on to join the RAF before retiring in 1970 with some 6000 military hours. He is still going strong 😀

racedo
12th Feb 2018, 21:58
Racedo, fair enough though I did hear of a German submarine crew in a bar with British internees. Not sure how true that was.

I do know that some RAF were interned. An RAF officer was on parole, broke his parole and escaped to the north. He was returned to the south.

Doubt the first one as Allied and German internees were held the Curragh which is a long long way from any water. Rumours of some crew from a U Boat landing close to a small port and visiting a local town but given possibility of discovery it likely a random event if it even occurred.

There was a general parole from Curragh and internees could come and go relatively freely. Incident that you refer to has been discussed on here where someone went to a hotel and had a big meal and disappeared without paying, then stole car to get to border.
He was returned after an official complaint because his conduct as a hofficer came into question for not paying for his food plus parole and free movement was likely to be curtailed for everybody else. Believe it was the running out and not paying for the meal was what did him.

racedo
12th Feb 2018, 22:13
Thanks for putting the record straight Vis a Vis Ireland, Racedo.
My father was a Sgt pilot in the Irish Army from 1942 - 1947. His view of it at the time was that Ireland was of more use to the UK as a neutral country. Incidentally, he flew: Tiger Moths, Magisters, Lysanders, Hurricanes and Seafires. One assumes the British government of the day saw fit to give/lend/sell these in the belief that, if required, they would be used to support the cause.

The old boy went on to join the RAF before retiring in 1970 with some 6000 military hours. He is still going strong 😀


Worked with a Scouser years ago whose dad was from Irish midlands, enrolled in Irish army he decided to desert and cross the water to join British Army, went awol and eventually reached Dublin but had second thoughts as he would be a deserter, he returned back to his barracks after being away for 7 days AWOL. Walked in expecting the worst and officer just looked at him, guessed something was up and said you missed tea, go to cook and let him fix you up.
He subsequently left, travelled across to UK and was mentioned in dispatches / got a medal for using a PIAT against something armoured in Normandy.

Trossie
13th Feb 2018, 06:31
You know, that sounds remarkably like some form of contemporaneous wishful thinking based on pure hypothesis than it does possible reality.

Do you really think any of those mentioned would have become the prominent political figures they currently are ?

You are totally correct about the individuals that I mentioned. They have only been able to reach the positions that they did thanks to the liberal, democratic (not to be confused with the LibDums!) political environment in which they have lived in the UK. That would not have been possible under the right-wing Nazis nor the left-wing Soviets. However, I stick to my general theme that people who had attempted similar activities to all those individuals that I have mentioned would have suffered exactly those fates.

Trossie
13th Feb 2018, 06:43
It is good you believe it but likely far from reality.

UK population has shown no history of resitance to an invader for centurys.

... ... ...I was really amused at that one!

I would like to see information on any successful military invasion over the last, say, 5 centuries? Or make is 6 or 7 or 8 or more?

You are totally correct though. There is no history of resistance to invaders as there has been no military invasion! For a long, long, long, long time!! (Something rather unique in world history.)

Trossie
13th Feb 2018, 07:34
I note that my comment that all of Ireland would have been occupied following a successful (however, unlikely) Nazi invasion of the UK has stirred up quite a bit of comment. And I think that it almost all supports my comment about Ireland. The Nazis would have been well aware of Ireland's slightly biased neutrality so would have easily used that to justify the occupation. However, when was neutrality any protection against Nazi occupation, unless it was a neutrality that was useful to the Nazis (such as Sweden and Switzerland)? I stick to my comment that following any successful occupation of the UK, all of Ireland would have been occupied.

UK establishment who really run the country would have been quietly bought off or eliminated, hence within weeks they would have fallen in line.

The people who fought the British Govt were the Anti fascists and socialists in the 20'sand 30's while Moseley nd the right wingers including Royal British Legion were happily in bed with Hitlers people. UK establishment happy they eliminated and would be bought off easily.I partially agree. Many (most?) would have done what was necessary in order to survive and in most cases that would have meant 'falling in line', in the same way that had already been done in much of Europe.

However... The Brits are a rebellious bunch (vide Brexit!!) and don't take kindly to being told what to do often by their own government let alone a 'johnny foreigner' government! There would have been far more 'low level' and constant irritation than in other occupied countries. German manpower to enforce the occupation, already stretched across a lot of Europe, would have been stretched rather thin with an occupation of the British Isles.

Added to that is the fact that actual Nazi support within Britain was very thin. There was almost no Nazi spy 'network' within Britain (early British radio detectors looking for transmissions from German spies within Britain soon gave up because there simply was nowt to detect). However, there was significant support for the Soviets within Britain (by blinkered 'idealists') and, especially after Operation Barbarossa had begun, this would have been exploited to the full by the Soviets. And all those pro-Soviet Brits would have been extremely anti-Nazi. By far the most successful 'behind the lines' partisan groups during the entire war were the Russians. (This was history repeating itself as the French suffered almost exactly the same in 1812.) The Soviets would very easily have used the 'rebellious' Brits to become a significant distraction at the western extremes of Nazi occupation. Any Nazi occupation of the British Isles would have been by far their most difficult occupation.

The Nazis would have eventually 'run out of steam' (there were simply not enough bad Germans to do everything that the Nazis wanted to do) and the Soviets would have taken all of Europe unopposed.

Pontius Navigator
13th Feb 2018, 08:02
simply not enough bad Germans

As discussed above, there would have been plenty of Europeans that would have supported the NAZI policies to suppress dissent in the provinces of the Empire in the manner of Roman Legions. Inside the tent to so speak.

Post-WW2 the Russians used a similar tactic where regiments were formed from all over the USSR rather than on a regional basis.

chuks
13th Feb 2018, 08:19
It's a special case, but you might want to look at the history of the Channel Islands under German occupation to try and guess what an occupied/conquered UK would have looked like. Some people resisted bravely, some collaborated cravenly, but most just tried to get on with things.

Pontius Navigator
13th Feb 2018, 08:27
chuks, remember many were shipped to internment camps. Some young women did collaborate but that was a way of surviving and getting what they could. Sadly many, including in Europe, prostituted themselves much in the same way that those in Haiti did with the Oxfam workers.

ShyTorque
13th Feb 2018, 08:58
If the Germans had won, the UK have lost most of its sovereign powers, finding itself in a European state from which it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible to have extricated itself. It would have been ruled from an overseas headquarters to which it would have been obliged to pay extremely large sums of money. Much of the input would have been from Germany.

Hang on a mo'......

hiflymk3
13th Feb 2018, 14:26
What if the nazis had won.

"Fritz, these Frankfurters are very good. Vere did you get them?"

"I got them from Herr Jones the butcher in the High Strasse Hans."

"Ah zat old fool, goes on about ze Boer Vor, no vonder ze Brititchers lost ze last von Fritz."

"Zo Hans, now you are posted here, vot do you zink of Varmington-on-zee?"

"Oh Fritz, it's verse zan Bexhill, full of ze old people. No vunder Herr Fraser ze undertaker does good business."

"Zigarette?"

"Danke, American zigarettes. Did you get zem on ze black market?"

"Ja, from ze spiv Valker, but he vos arrested for smuggling in Hasting by ze policeman Foyle."

"Vell I'd better be off, I have to zee zat pompous bank manager Herr Mainvaring to change some Deutsch Pounds. He's alvays asking me if I vant to join ze Rotarians."

"You'd be better speaking to his underling Vilson, he's a freemason."

"Tschus!"

racedo
13th Feb 2018, 17:28
I was really amused at that one!

I would like to see information on any successful military invasion over the last, say, 5 centuries? Or make is 6 or 7 or 8 or more?

You are totally correct though. There is no history of resistance to invaders as there has been no military invasion! For a long, long, long, long time!! (Something rather unique in world history.)

You seem to presume UK wasn't.........

Royal family happily married into whatever family it could while claiming its Englishness but happy to keep their foreign names, influences etc.

Taking over a country can be easy if you plan it properly.

racedo
13th Feb 2018, 17:39
I note that my comment that all of Ireland would have been occupied following a successful (however, unlikely) Nazi invasion of the UK has stirred up quite a bit of comment. And I think that it almost all supports my comment about Ireland. The Nazis would have been well aware of Ireland's slightly biased neutrality so would have easily used that to justify the occupation. However, when was neutrality any protection against Nazi occupation, unless it was a neutrality that was useful to the Nazis (such as Sweden and Switzerland)? I stick to my comment that following any successful occupation of the UK, all of Ireland would have been occupied.

I agree but also Germany may have also taken the route of why bother as nothing of military significance there.

What is forgotten was UK were pushed into Irish Independence by US making it clear that it saw UK Battleship deployment as aprt of great discussion with Irish self rule being a strand.

US guaranteeing independence while Irish Govt being clear it sought no war with Germany could mean a notional force in Ireland as no threat or even leaving it alone as long as No UK military force present.



I partially agree. Many (most?) would have done what was necessary in order to survive and in most cases that would have meant 'falling in line', in the same way that had already been done in much of Europe.

However... The Brits are a rebellious bunch (vide Brexit!!) and don't take kindly to being told what to do often by their own government let alone a 'johnny foreigner' government! There would have been far more 'low level' and constant irritation than in other occupied countries. German manpower to enforce the occupation, already stretched across a lot of Europe, would have been stretched rather thin with an occupation of the British Isles.

Added to that is the fact that actual Nazi support within Britain was very thin. There was almost no Nazi spy 'network' within Britain (early British radio detectors looking for transmissions from German spies within Britain soon gave up because there simply was nowt to detect). However, there was significant support for the Soviets within Britain (by blinkered 'idealists') and, especially after Operation Barbarossa had begun, this would have been exploited to the full by the Soviets. And all those pro-Soviet Brits would have been extremely anti-Nazi. By far the most successful 'behind the lines' partisan groups during the entire war were the Russians. (This was history repeating itself as the French suffered almost exactly the same in 1812.) The Soviets would very easily have used the 'rebellious' Brits to become a significant distraction at the western extremes of Nazi occupation. Any Nazi occupation of the British Isles would have been by far their most difficult occupation.

The Nazis would have eventually 'run out of steam' (there were simply not enough bad Germans to do everything that the Nazis wanted to do) and the Soviets would have taken all of Europe unopposed.

Nazi support was embedded in UK establishment who would have quickly fallen in line to retain their rank and privelege.

SARF
13th Feb 2018, 23:07
SARF, once lectured by a German in Berlin (1990) saying we were on the wrong side in the war. Togethger we could have ruled the World.

The combined British German fleets would have ruled the seas. The British carriers with their armoured flight decks were superior to the US ones. Remember when a Japanese Kamikazi hit Victorious the debris was just pushed over the side and she carried on.
Indeed. U.K. euro policy has always been ,, never let one power have the full run of the European northern plains ...
We could have cut a great deal.. as opposed to the one we cut with America.
50 knackered old ships for prime real estate all around the globe

Pinky the pilot
14th Feb 2018, 09:49
What if the nazis had won.

"Fritz, these Frankfurters are very good. Vere did you get them?"

"I got them from Herr Jones the butcher in the High Strasse Hans."

"Ah zat old fool, goes on about ze Boer Vor, no vonder ze Brititchers lost ze last von Fritz."

"Zo Hans, now you are posted here, vot do you zink of Varmington-on-zee?"

"Oh Fritz, it's verse zan Bexhill, full of ze old people. No vunder Herr Fraser ze undertaker does good business."

"Zigarette?"

"Danke, American zigarettes. Did you get zem on ze black market?"

"Ja, from ze spiv Valker, but he vos arrested for smuggling in Hasting by ze policeman Foyle."

"Vell I'd better be off, I have to zee zat pompous bank manager Herr Mainvaring to change some Deutsch Pounds. He's alvays asking me if I vant to join ze Rotarians."

"You'd be better speaking to his underling Vilson, he's a freemason."

"Tschus!"

Now why do I get a strange feeling that the above quoted scenario would have made a bloody hilarious 'spin off' TV series?:}:D:hmm:

And preferably written by Spike Milligan!:ok:

ZeBedie
14th Feb 2018, 22:01
That would not have been possible under the right-wing Nazis

That the Nazis were right wing is a myth. They were socialists, as were the Italian Fascists.

Hempy
15th Feb 2018, 00:45
That the Nazis were right wing is a myth. They were socialists, as were the Italian Fascists.

The National Socialist German Workers Party was about as ‘Socialist’ and for ‘Workers’ as the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is ‘Democratic’ and for the ‘People’. Any attempt to claim otherwise only serves to draw attention to either the claimants simple ignorance or their agenda driven, deliberate misrepresentation.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s the former. If you like I can recommend some excellent reading that may help illuminate you in regards to how and why the NSDAP got his name. :ok:

Jetex_Jim
15th Feb 2018, 03:02
Nazi support was embedded in UK establishment who would have quickly fallen in line to retain their rank and privelege.

Agreed, the recent film The Darkest Hour reminds us of the position of the mainstream Conservative party on the Nazis in 1940.

Lord Halifax and Chamberlin were all for cutting a deal with Hitler and were very much against Churchill. Churchill got the position of PM because the opposition Labour Party, headed by Attlee and Greenwood, who declared they would only serve in coalition with the Conservative party if Churchill became PM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1940_War_Cabinet_crisis

The Conservative Party's preferred choice for leader, Lord Halifax, was all for making terms with Hitler.

Ironically, Britain's great (Conservative) wartime leader got the job because of the intervention of the Labour party.

ZeBedie
15th Feb 2018, 07:44
The National Socialist German Workers Party was about as ‘Socialist’ and for ‘Workers’ as the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is ‘Democratic’ and for the ‘People’. Any attempt to claim otherwise only serves to draw attention to either the claimants simple ignorance or their agenda driven, deliberate misrepresentation.


Hitler's policies were remarkably similar to those of Jeremy Corbyn. But socialism always goes Animal Farm, doesn't it.

jindabyne
15th Feb 2018, 20:34
[QUOTE]You know, that sounds remarkably like some form of contemporaneous wishful thinking based on pure hypothesis than it does possible reality. [/QUOTE

Vino?

racedo
15th Feb 2018, 22:27
Hitler's policies were remarkably similar to those of Jeremy Corbyn. But socialism always goes Animal Farm, doesn't it.

Said from a position of political ignorance I am afraid.

Corbyn has not advocated militarisation ever, in fact he has always been the opposite and while many have always hated him for it. There is a lot to be said for a politician who has kept consistent views over the years rather than blowing in the wind of populism.

Trossie
15th Feb 2018, 23:09
There is a lot to be said for a politician who has kept consistent views over the years rather than blowing in the wind of populism.Like Stalin?

woptb
15th Feb 2018, 23:24
Like Stalin?

Ooooooh,I saw what you did there..................no!

Highway1
16th Feb 2018, 00:05
There is a lot to be said for a politician who has kept consistent views over the years rather than blowing in the wind of populism.

EU Membership?....

Ogre
17th Feb 2018, 06:02
While not related to the Nazis' or in fact the Germans, I always enjoyed "All our tomorrows", by Ted Allbeury. Great Britain is accelerating into anarchy through union strikes, racist gangs, riots etc until the government accepts "assistance" from the very helpful Soviet Union.

Needless to say sections of the population don't take it well and fight a guerilla war.

I suspect a German invasion would have been met the same way

Trossie
17th Feb 2018, 07:13
I agree [about the occupation of Ireland] but also Germany may have also taken the route of why bother as nothing of military significance there.
There would have been immense military significance in controlling the entire Atlantic seaboard of Europe. To the north Norway was already under German control, Iceland was controlled by the British so would easily have been taken by the Germans. To the south the Atlantic coast of France was already under German control, Spain was a 'sympathetic neutral' and although Salazar's Portugal was not a Nazi sympathiser, it was 'right wing' and would not have posed any problems. Occupying the whole of Ireland together with Britain would have made enormous military sense.

Nazi support was embedded in UK establishment who would have quickly fallen in line to retain their rank and privelege.The extent of this 'support' is a bit overstated. I am sure that almost every country in the world had Nazi supporters, but they were were far from a significant number in Britain. Agreed some of the 'establishment' would have gone along with a Nazi occupation but that would not have been the same as supporting it. There were no Nazi spies of any significance within Britain during the war. On the other side of things there was a huge anti-Nazi sentiment within Britain. This would have brought about levels of non-cooperation that would have made occupation difficult. The Soviets already had a very significant spy network within Britain and this would have been significantly strengthened during the early occupation while the Nazis and the Soviets were 'at peace' with each other (as was done in other parts of occupied Europe).

With Britain out of the way, Stalin would not have been able to dismiss the clear evidence of Nazi plans to attack the USSR that was provided to him as 'British deception' and he would have been better prepared for Operation Barbarossa. From County Kerry to North Ossetia, the Nazis would have been spread far too thin (even if you add their sympathisers); partisan resistance that was already severe in Nazi occupied Russian territory (funny old thing, same as Napoleon encountered!) would have had Soviet encouragement in other parts of Europe and would have become quite significant among the rebellious Brits. (Soviet supported communist resistance was not just a joke from the "'Allo, 'allo" series, it was very real through much of occupied Europe, including France. The Soviet network that already existed in Britain would easily have stirred up partisan resistance there.) The Nazis would have collapsed and the Soviets would have ruled all of Europe. Until the USSR collapsed, as all dictatorial systems always do.

Britain resisting as it did saved Europe from all of that and enabled Europe to be as advanced and wealthy as it is now. As so often in history, Britain helped Europe to save itself from itself.

sitigeltfel
17th Feb 2018, 11:46
Every time some idiot states that the Nazis weren't Socialists adds further proof to what many psychologists believe, Socialism is a mental ilness.

Pretending that a problem you disagree with wasn't grown in your own back yard doesn't absolve you from blame. The blood on both of their hands, Left and Right, are attached to the same body.

That is why they ignore history and try to re-write it to get rid of inconvenient facts.

Hempy
17th Feb 2018, 12:40
Every time some idiot states that the Nazis weren't Socialists adds further proof to what many psychologists believe, Socialism is a mental ilness.

Pretending that a problem you disagree with wasn't grown in your own back yard doesn't absolve you from blame. The blood on both of their hands, Left and Right, are attached to the same body.

That is why they ignore history and try to re-write it to get rid of inconvenient facts.

You really aren’t very well read, are you? Here, since ‘The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich’ is obviously a bit too highbrow, I’ll dumb it down for you..

https://mises.org/library/myth-nazi-capitalism

Nazis Are Not Socialists Nor Democrats Despite What Alt-Right Might Say (http://www.newsweek.com/nazis-democrats-socialists-alt-right-650572)

https://www.snopes.com/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

Heathrow Harry
17th Feb 2018, 13:05
"Every time some idiot states that the Nazis weren't Socialists adds further proof to what many psychologists believe, Socialism is a mental ilness."

:ooh::ooh::ooh::ooh::ooh:

Dear God!!!

Best you stay abroad I think..................

racedo
17th Feb 2018, 13:12
There would have been immense military significance in controlling the entire Atlantic seaboard of Europe. To the north Norway was already under German control, Iceland was controlled by the British so would easily have been taken by the Germans. To the south the Atlantic coast of France was already under German control, Spain was a 'sympathetic neutral' and although Salazar's Portugal was not a Nazi sympathiser, it was 'right wing' and would not have posed any problems. Occupying the whole of Ireland together with Britain would have made enormous military sense..

No it would not have.

Less than 20 years previously many in Ireland had fought to get rid of the UK influence.

National policy agreed by Irish Parliment was Neutrality.

UK going in again as an occupying force would have been met with guerilla warfare with UK requiring a couple of hundred thousand troops to subdue / control it.

In addition the 50,000 Irish Nationals who fought with UK forces would not be doing.

Travelling between Ireland and UK would still be easily done but UK could then expect a Guerilla war to be brought to itself where Industrial Sabotage on Factorys and Infrastructure would be taking place.

Just how many people would have to diverted to the War Effort for this ?

In addition while there were a number of Germans parachuted into Ireland to act as spies they had zero impact and majority picked up quickly, different position where population happy for them to be there and want to be trained in Guerilla tactics.

I do not even mention Irish in America influence but US assistance becomes more difficult when Irish Americans openly oppose it and sabotage any assistance because of UK occupation of Ireland.

UK would say we are saving Democracy but difficult to justify when you have just occupied a country forceably as then UK has to justify how it is different from the Nazi's.

Trossie
17th Feb 2018, 17:24
I think you missed the point I was making. I was talking about the Nazis occupying all of Ireland if they occupied Britain. Irish neutrality would have been about as meaningless as Danish or Norwegian neutrality. The military value of occupying Ireland would have been immense as, as I said, the Nazis would have had control of the entire Atlantic seaboard of Europe. Then when the Nazis collapsed the Soviets would have occupied it for the exact same military advantage. Until they collapsed.

Not everything to do with Ireland is 'anti British'! In the cases that I mentioned above the Irish and the British would generally have been allies against a common occupying enemy. Although I think that the Brits would have been more a thorn in the side of the occupiers than the Irish would have been. The Irish Americans would have been making far less fuss about both those occupations as they were both 'not British'!

But if Britain had fallen, all Ireland would have also been occupied by the invader. Neutrality counted nowt to the Nazis if they could benefit by ignoring it.

radeng
17th Feb 2018, 17:31
Neutrality counted nowt to the Nazis if they could benefit by ignoring it.

One does wonder quite why the Swiss were left alone when one considers how much money was there.

Trossie
17th Feb 2018, 18:00
Switzerland, and Sweden, remaining neutral was very, very useful to the Nazis.

racedo
17th Feb 2018, 18:45
I think you missed the point I was making. I was talking about the Nazis occupying all of Ireland if they occupied Britain. Irish neutrality would have been about as meaningless as Danish or Norwegian neutrality. The military value of occupying Ireland would have been immense as, as I said, the Nazis would have had control of the entire Atlantic seaboard of Europe. Then when the Nazis collapsed the Soviets would have occupied it for the exact same military advantage. Until they collapsed.

Not everything to do with Ireland is 'anti British'! In the cases that I mentioned above the Irish and the British would generally have been allies against a common occupying enemy. Although I think that the Brits would have been more a thorn in the side of the occupiers than the Irish would have been. The Irish Americans would have been making far less fuss about both those occupations as they were both 'not British'!

But if Britain had fallen, all Ireland would have also been occupied by the invader. Neutrality counted nowt to the Nazis if they could benefit by ignoring it.

As said earlier there is no benefit to Nazis to occupying Ireland for the sake of it, ensure no UK military presence and leave it alone.

As for being the thorn in the side of occupiers................ think Irish would have a different view as they had people who had successfully done it to the Brits.

But then again in Germans left Ireland alone aside from an odd garrison here and there they would have just been ignored.

No need for Germans to build stuff as 3000 miles is a long way and US probably not at war with Germany so any UK has to come from Canada / Newfoundland.

tdracer
17th Feb 2018, 21:14
As for being the thorn in the side of occupiers................ think Irish would have a different view as they had people who had successfully done it to the Brits.

The Nazi's were rather more brutal than the Brits ever were. I wonder just how determined Irish resistance would have been after the Nazi's executed 20 Irish for each German that the resistance killed, or forced the population of a small Irish town sympathetic to the resistance into a church, blocked the doors, and set it on fire...

racedo
17th Feb 2018, 21:29
The Nazi's were rather more brutal than the Brits ever were. I wonder just how determined Irish resistance would have been after the Nazi's executed 20 Irish for each German that the resistance killed, or forced the population of a small Irish town sympathetic to the resistance into a church, blocked the doors, and set it on fire...

Guess you don't know Irish history very well then............

In Irish War of Independence Black and Tans threatened and started multiplying up until it started being done back very quickly against any Anglo British family and their houses burned. It stopped very quickly as every Anglo British family would have been targeted.

As for brutality then suggest you read why Oliver Cromwell is reviled in Ireland as a butcher after the slaughter at Drogheda.

tdracer
17th Feb 2018, 23:45
It stopped very quickly as every Anglo British family would have been targeted.
The Nazi's wouldn't have stopped - if the Irish had proved to be a serious "thorn in the side", they simply would have committed genocide.

Mr Oleo Strut
18th Feb 2018, 00:04
Judging by the evidence from countries occupied by the Nazis, including the Channel Islands, there would have been widespread misery, savagery and collaboration in the UK, until such time as the Nazis imploded, which would have happened sooner or later. We should all be very thankful that occupation did not happen.

racedo
18th Feb 2018, 00:29
The Nazi's wouldn't have stopped - if the Irish had proved to be a serious "thorn in the side", they simply would have committed genocide.

Now you starting to understand what the view in Ireland was of the Brits from that time period.

The actions of the Majority in Northern Ireland in widespread discrimination and the overlooking of it by London just adds to it.

Ireland had no reason to be a thorn in Germanys side.
Germany had no history of invasion or slaughter in Ireland.

Bearing in mind that Irish Famine was still in living memory of people being less than 4 generations gone then Irish people had no reason to hate Germans. Remember their population in the Island halved.

They already were fully aware of what London had done going back centuries and Black and Tans were less than 20 years previously.

In WW1 the posters for recruitment were fighting for rights of small nations but Ireland was excluded from that in post war conference.
Fighting for Democracy when in 1918 elections majority vote in Ireland was for Independence but London split country.
Boundary commission in 1925 to look at border but it was fudged.
Economic warfare in 1930's
Ireland struggling to regain ports held onto by RN in 1938.
Plus a govt made up with many people who had fought for Irish Independence.

Pull that together and you start to understand why Dublin would have no interest in becoming involved.

Few politicians in Ireland would have trusted British Govt then, when you read and understand the history it becomes hard to blame them.

Fact they were neutral and had openly stated this well in advance of WW2 plus didn't jump in like many countrys when Allies at door of Berlin gives them a little bit of credit because they would have had every reason not to have been on other side.

Hempy
18th Feb 2018, 06:32
Now you starting to understand what the view in Ireland was of the Brits from that time period.

The actions of the Majority in Northern Ireland in widespread discrimination and the overlooking of it by London just adds to it.

Ireland had no reason to be a thorn in Germanys side.
Germany had no history of invasion or slaughter in Ireland.

Bearing in mind that Irish Famine was still in living memory of people being less than 4 generations gone then Irish people had no reason to hate Germans. Remember their population in the Island halved.

They already were fully aware of what London had done going back centuries and Black and Tans were less than 20 years previously.

In WW1 the posters for recruitment were fighting for rights of small nations but Ireland was excluded from that in post war conference.
Fighting for Democracy when in 1918 elections majority vote in Ireland was for Independence but London split country.
Boundary commission in 1925 to look at border but it was fudged.
Economic warfare in 1930's
Ireland struggling to regain ports held onto by RN in 1938.
Plus a govt made up with many people who had fought for Irish Independence.

Pull that together and you start to understand why Dublin would have no interest in becoming involved.

Few politicians in Ireland would have trusted British Govt then, when you read and understand the history it becomes hard to blame them.

Fact they were neutral and had openly stated this well in advance of WW2 plus didn't jump in like many countrys when Allies at door of Berlin gives them a little bit of credit because they would have had every reason not to have been on other side.

The difference of course being that if a RAF pilot bailed out over or crash landed in Ireland he was given a liberally laced cup of tea and placed on the next ferry home. A Luftwaffe pilot in the same predicament spent the rest of the war in the nick..

Fareastdriver
18th Feb 2018, 09:29
The difference of course being that if a RAF pilot bailed out over or crash landed in Ireland he was given a liberally laced cup of tea and placed on the next ferry home

Not quite. As far as the Irish government was concerned opposing combatants were treated the same. One RAF pilot 'escaped' from internment but when he arrived back at his unit the British sent him back to Dublin.

Spitfire down: The WWII camp where Allies and Germans mixed - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13924720)

Krystal n chips
18th Feb 2018, 10:29
The difference of course being that if a RAF pilot bailed out over or crash landed in Ireland he was given a liberally laced cup of tea and placed on the next ferry home. A Luftwaffe pilot in the same predicament spent the rest of the war in the nick..

Ah, just one small flaw here.

Getting a ferry to say Holyhead would have been the easy bit although on arrival in the God forsaken dump any sensible German would probably have asked, or demanded, to go back on the next sailing.

Thereafter, it would have got a shade problematic as there weren't exactly a lot of sailings from say Harwich -Hoek or Dover- Calais / Zeebrugge or other continental ports for that matter during this period.....:) :E

racedo
18th Feb 2018, 10:45
The difference of course being that if a RAF pilot bailed out over or crash landed in Ireland he was given a liberally laced cup of tea and placed on the next ferry home. A Luftwaffe pilot in the same predicament spent the rest of the war in the nick..

Not quite at least until 1943.
From 1943 he would be driven to border and handed over, whether he wanted to go or not..........

Trossie
19th Feb 2018, 07:15
The simple fact is that if the Nazis had managed to occupy Britain they would not have stopped at the Northern Irish border, they would have occupied all of Ireland which would have given them effective control of the entire Atlantic coast of Europe. They would not have cared two hoots what Dublin thought about that. And, initially at least, they would have had a lot of direct support from Irish nationalists who would have seen the Nazis primarily as 'anti-British'.

And ultimately, when the Nazis collapsed, the Soviets would have moved in to control it all. Until they collapsed. To quote Mr Oleo Strut:We should all be very thankful that occupation did not happen.

racedo
19th Feb 2018, 17:25
The simple fact is that if the Nazis had managed to occupy Britain they would not have stopped at the Northern Irish border, they would have occupied all of Ireland which would have given them effective control of the entire Atlantic coast of Europe. They would not have cared two hoots what Dublin thought about that. And, initially at least, they would have had a lot of direct support from Irish nationalists who would have seen the Nazis primarily as 'anti-British'.

And ultimately, when the Nazis collapsed, the Soviets would have moved in to control it all. Until they collapsed. To quote Mr Oleo Strut:

Maybe maybe not but Ireland had no beef with Germany and German troops could have marched in and been ignored, especially in the pubs.

Ireland had little to offer anybody even its own people.

Ireland had lttle strategic value when the next landfall was 3000 miles away and zero prospect of an invasion across the Atlantic.

Even had the Soviets overcome the Nazis there would have been little strategic interest in Ireland once you rooted out some people.

tdracer
20th Feb 2018, 00:16
Ireland had little to offer anybody even its own people.
Two words for you: Slave Labor.
Build weapons for us, grow food for us, or you will die.
The Nazi's were involved in a war of conquest, with a goal of complete European domination - once they bothered to invade Britain they wouldn't have stopped simply because they came up to a line on a map. Further, there is no reason to believe the Nazi's would have treated Ireland any different than they did the other occupied territories.

Hempy
20th Feb 2018, 05:27
The Germans indeed had a plan for occupying Ireland, Operation Green.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/what-if-hitler-had-invaded-1.684250

sitigeltfel
20th Feb 2018, 07:39
You really aren’t very well read, are you? Here, since ‘The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich’ is obviously a bit too highbrow, I’ll dumb it down for you..

https://mises.org/library/myth-nazi-capitalism

Nazis Are Not Socialists Nor Democrats Despite What Alt-Right Might Say (http://www.newsweek.com/nazis-democrats-socialists-alt-right-650572)

https://www.snopes.com/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

Here's some reading for you, what part of this don't you understand? You can run it through Google Translate if you find it too taxing.

https://going-postal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/NP3-678x449.jpg

It is obviously embarrassing for you to be a fruit from the same rotten tree, but obfuscation and denial doesn't alter hard, cold, facts.

(Snopes...:ugh:)

chuks
20th Feb 2018, 09:05
What Hitler was quoted as saying on that monument was that he did not understand how one could look after the machinery but fail to look after the workers, "den Menschen selbst, verkommen zu lassen." (to allow the people themselves to fall into a state of disrepair).

"I am a socialist because it appears to me to be not understandable to carefully clean and maintain a machine, but to allow the finest agent of labor, the workers themselves, to fall into disrepair."

(The slogan on the side reads that all workers belong in the Deutsche Arbeitsfront, German Labor Front: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Labour_Front This was a front organization that was meant to protect the rights of workers but which actually exploited and suppressed them.)

(verfallen: loosely translated that means for an object to be allowed to fall into disrepair for lack of of maintenance.) In other words, Hitler is applying a verb meant to apply to factory machinery in this case to workers. In his eyes, factory workers are thought of as also being in the cagegory of factory machinery. This misapplication of a verb is typical of the language of the Third Reich. cf. LTI by Professor Victor Klemperer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTI%E2%80%93_Lingua_Tertii_Imperii

Before you start about me using Wikipedia, sitigeltfel, yes, I have read LTI, and in the original German. Using Wikipedia or Snopes is just a way to let intelligent people without any depth of knowledge of this or that point of reference take part in a discussion by getting a "quick read" of whatever is under discussion. Do have a read of LTI before you bother to try to refute this point about Hitler's true stance re: socialism by expressing simple contempt for Wikipedia as you have for Snopes. I understand that point-scoring, not real fact-checking, is not your thing, but ....

I think it's fair to say that Hitler was as much a socialist as the DAF was a union. In both cases then, not much at all.

It's a nice try at scoring points to come up with this or that statement reading that Hitler was a socialist, that Stalin loved his people, or that Trump is strong for LGBTQ rights, but none of those specious statements, usually made by the person in question about himself, really prove any of those things as facts.

Sitigeltfel just gets a "pants on fire" for this one. Better luck next time.

It would be useful to know where that image came from. The guy in the shiny leather helmet, just to the left of the plinth, is a policeman, who appears to be escorting a march past the monument, itself surmounted by the emblem of the DAF.

I would guess that this is from pre-war Munich in the mid-Thirties, when Hitler was still tightening his grip on Germany, perhaps showing a march meant to show, or perhaps fake, popular support for the DAF and to encourage more workers to join at a time when there were still other unions. Later there was only the DAF.

Hempy
20th Feb 2018, 10:15
Here's some reading for you, what part of this don't you understand? You can run it through Google Translate if you find it too taxing.

https://going-postal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/NP3-678x449.jpg

It is obviously embarrassing for you to be a fruit from the same rotten tree, but obfuscation and denial doesn't alter hard, cold, facts.

(Snopes...:ugh:)

You really aren’t the sharpest knife in the rack, are you?

edit: actually I don’t need to bother, chuks has beaten me to it.

ZeBedie
20th Feb 2018, 12:17
Corbyn has not advocated militarisation ever, in fact he has always been the opposite and while many have always hated him for it.

So being pacifist makes him a socialist and implies that only a capitalist would militarise? What did the Soviet Union do exactly?

When I said Hitlers policies were like those favoured by Agent Cob, I was referring to the social engineering and government manipulation of the labour market.

And as for Mussolini - his economic policies really were identical to those advocated by Corbyn.

racedo
20th Feb 2018, 19:09
The Germans indeed had a plan for occupying Ireland, Operation Green.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/what-if-hitler-had-invaded-1.684250

Love the idea some of them expected to move rapidly each day...................... hell that was a struggle even in the 1970's and roads a bit in 30 years.

Hempy
20th Feb 2018, 20:42
Love the idea some of them expected to move rapidly each day...................... hell that was a struggle even in the 1970's and roads a bit in 30 years.

The same could possibly have been said about the roads in the Ukraine in 1941, but then again Panzers didn’t need roads :eek:

racedo
20th Feb 2018, 21:22
b, I was referring to the social engineering and government manipulation of the labour market.

.

Govt manipulation of the Labour Market................ don't make me laugh

Torys in 1990's introduced "profitshare" where could give up 25% of pay for profitshare arrangements.

Sole basis of this was that Tax impact would make working people better off and no wage rises were necessary which reduced inflation.

Is that not manipulation of Labour Market ?

Introduction of a free for all in Immigration resulted in thousands of people coming to UK and taking jobs.

Is that not manipulation of the Labour Market ?

racedo
20th Feb 2018, 21:23
The same could possibly have been said about the roads in the Ukraine in 1941, but then again Panzers didn’t need roads :eek:


Wide open Steppes are a little bit different in going through Irish Midlands with bogs everywhere.

chuks
21st Feb 2018, 04:06
People think the Nazis were such gloomy sods. When it came to military planning they were often sunny optimists. "Mud, what mud?"

Hempy
21st Feb 2018, 06:02
Wide open Steppes are a little bit different in going through Irish Midlands with bogs everywhere.

People think the Nazis were such gloomy sods. When it came to military planning they were often sunny optimists. "Mud, what mud?"

Well the Pripet marshes didn’t seem to slow them down much, in either direction!

LowNSlow
21st Feb 2018, 14:31
and at 270,000 km2 the Pripet Marshes are a little larger than Eire at 70,000 km2!!

chuks
21st Feb 2018, 15:12
How about "Don't bother dressing up warmly. We'll have you all back home by the end of autumn. When we kick the door in the whole rotten thing will fall down." Now that is optimism!

racedo
21st Feb 2018, 18:20
and at 270,000 km2 the Pripet Marshes are a little larger than Eire at 70,000 km2!!


So how many Pubs have pripet marshes.............

LowNSlow
21st Feb 2018, 19:56
I'm sure there are Irish bars in Belorus but there are damn few Belorus bars in Ireland!

chuks
22nd Feb 2018, 09:34
The Nazi Wehrmacht went around the Pripet Marshes on the way into Russia, for much easier going all around.

On the way out, oh, yes, they went straight through with the Red Army nipping at their heels, but I bet that they had to leave a lot of stuff behind due to the hard going then.

My mother-in-law was part of German history, coming from somewhere on the eastern edge of Großdeutschland as she had done.

Her table manners betrayed a bit of lingering anxiety, the way she shoveled her scoff in as if the Red Army were a mere ten klicks to the north of us and coming on apace.

Too, she had supposedly come west on the Wilhelm Gustloff, which soon afterwards was torpedoed and sunk with the largest loss of life in a sinking ever, about 9,000 people including many women and children.

Truly it has been said that when you open up a big can of whoop-ass the trick is to not get any on you.

Hempy
22nd Feb 2018, 15:36
The Nazi Wehrmacht went around the Pripet Marshes on the way into Russia, for much easier going all around.

On the way out, oh, yes, they went straight through with the Red Army nipping at their heels, but I bet that they had to leave a lot of stuff behind due to the hard going then.

My mother-in-law was part of German history, coming from somewhere on the eastern edge of Großdeutschland as she had done.

Her table manners betrayed a bit of lingering anxiety, the way she shoveled her scoff in as if the Red Army were a mere ten klicks to the north of us and coming on apace.

Too, she had supposedly come west on the Wilhelm Gustloff, which soon afterwards was torpedoed and sunk with the largest loss of life in a sinking ever, about 9,000 people including many women and children.

Truly it has been said that when you open up a big can of whoop-ass the trick is to not get any on you.

Which was sort of my point about the bogs of Éirinn. If they could get around the Pripet marshes without losing stride they could manage anything.

From memory the ‘Gustloff’ was evacuating Danzig or Gdynia wasn’t it? The Captain was made a Hero of the Soviet Union for that one.

The German civilians in Pomerania, East Prussia etc were the ones who paid the price for the German military ‘excesses’ in the USSR. Some reports say that German women bore a million Russian babies after the war...

racedo
22nd Feb 2018, 18:32
My mother-in-law was part of German history, coming from somewhere on the eastern edge of Großdeutschland as she had done.



I know of 2 people whose parent / grandparent fough with Wehmarcht in Ukraine.
Rounded up in village, told you are now in Army and fighting the Bolsheviks, captured by Allies in Austria at end of war and then joined US army and trained for invasion of Japan.

Some buckets of sunshine ended that but US would not send US Soldiers back to Russia so they could live where they liked, no real effort made to ensure these were not mass murderers or anything else.