PDA

View Full Version : How would history have changed if Hitler hadn't killed Jews?


rudeguy
03-29-2011, 08:19 AM
I watch too much Military Channel and always wonder this. What if Hitler hadn't killed/persecuted Jews? IIRC, some of the most important scientists involved in the atom bomb defected from Germany. Imagine how quickly Britain would have surrendered if Hitler had the a-bomb.

Beyond that, one of his main problems towards the end of the war was the lack of able bodied soldiers. 5 million more soldiers and factory workers surely would have helped his cause.

Then finally, how would history have regarded him without the slaughtering of the Jews?

Jeffg010
03-29-2011, 08:22 AM
I think forbes 400 list would be all Jews.

bpatters69
03-29-2011, 08:33 AM
Interesting question... I have also read that many of the nuclear scientists of the age were jews that lived in Germany. So it stands to reason that if Hitler had not attacked the Jews in Germany that he could have utilized the Jewish, homegrown German scientists to develop nuclear technology. Germany had plenty of other scientists though who were not Jewish so who knows. I would need to see a list of Jewish scientists that left Germany who were involved with the development of nuclear technology.

On a different note, if Hitler had not persecuted the Jews, he would not have been fighting a civil war. Capturing, processing and killing Jews (as reprehensible as that is to type) took a toll on the German war machine. Hitler had to devote personel and resources to what Hitler called "the Jewish problem".

I have an interest in WWII history as well and I have often pondered why Hitler and the German people chose to persecute and then try to destroy an entire race of human beings. My thought has been that Germans are a fiercely proud, nationalistic and independant people. After Germany was soundly defeated by the Allies in WWI, the German people needed a scape goat. Germans could not accept that it was their own actions which gave them WWI and the near economic collopase which existed after WWI. Hitler was nothing more than a lightening rod for German disontent. Unfortunately, the Jews were an easy target.

matt0611
03-29-2011, 08:41 AM
I think WWII would have been pretty much the same.
I guess Israel wouldn't be around though?

wuliheron
03-29-2011, 08:42 AM
Hitler was a racist fascist dictator who persecuted everyone who wasn't pure Aryan. Whether he killed the Jews or not many would have fled the country. Especially the more highly educated ones who had the means to leave and could look forward to being treated better elsewhere. He also considered a lot of physics like Einstein's Relativity to be "communistic" and would never have supported such people. In other words, he was complete nut who was so incompetent that at one point when the allies had the chance to assassinate him they let him live so that he could force Germany to loose the war just that much faster.

Of course, if he wasn't a racist fascist then he never would have risen to power or tried to conquer the world.

Macamus Prime
03-29-2011, 09:04 AM
,... who was so incompetent that at one point when the allies had the chance to assassinate him they let him live so that he could force Germany to loose the war just that much faster.


,... all the while more allied soldiers continued to die. Yes, Hitler was incompetent.

On a On Topic note; I think things would have played out as is, war wise. Israel would exist, but it would have been formed much later. And, I am more than certain the USA would continue being Israel's meat sheild.

Anarchist420
03-29-2011, 09:25 AM
I watch too much Military Channel and always wonder this. What if Hitler hadn't killed/persecuted Jews? IIRC, some of the most important scientists involved in the atom bomb defected from Germany. Imagine how quickly Britain would have surrendered if Hitler had the a-bomb.

Beyond that, one of his main problems towards the end of the war was the lack of able bodied soldiers. 5 million more soldiers and factory workers surely would have helped his cause.

Then finally, how would history have regarded him without the slaughtering of the Jews?
If Hitler hadn't killed the Jews, he probably would be viewed favorably. I also think that asshole Churchill would be viewed in a disfavorable light, like he should be, considering the fate of European Jewry was ultimately in his hands.

Hitler actually didn't want war with Britain; Britain was the aggressor, as usual. See Patrick J Buchanan's "Churchill, Hitler, and an Unnecessary War". Also, google "Hitler didn't want war"
(http://www.henrymakow.com/000369.html) and you should come across a Jewish author saying the same Patrick J Buchanan did.

On a side note, Hitler probably would've been successful had he not attacked Poland. He sealed his fate when invaded Poland like a dumbass, even though he wasn't a dumbass. You have to be pretty bright to be able to do all that damage.

ProfJohn
03-29-2011, 09:43 AM
If Hitler hadn't killed the Jews, he probably would be viewed favorably. I also think that asshole Churchill would be viewed in a disfavorable light, like he should be, considering the fate of European Jewry was ultimately in his hands.

Hitler actually didn't want war with Britain; Britain was the aggressor, as usual. See Patrick J Buchanan's "Churchill, Hitler, and an Unnecessary War". Also, google "Hitler didn't want war"
(http://www.henrymakow.com/000369.html) and you should come across a Jewish author saying the same Patrick J Buchanan did.

On a side note, Hitler probably would've been successful had he not attacked Poland. He sealed his fate when invaded Poland like a dumbass, even though he wasn't a dumbass. You have to be pretty bright to be able to do all that damage.
Are you really that much of an idiot?

France and England made it very clear that attacking Poland would bring them into war with Germany so Hitler knew what he was doing.

If China was to invade Canada and we went to their defense would it be okay for the Chinese to claim that they didn't want a war with the US?

ProfJohn
03-29-2011, 09:50 AM
Back on topic.

1. Germany still would have lost the war, but it may have taken a little longer.

2. Germany still would have not had a chance to get to the a-bomb. They didn't have the economic base to get there. The Manhattan Project cost $20 billion in 1996 dollars which is almost as much as we spent on small arms. Germany could not have spent that much due to their smaller economy.
A total of four weapons (the Trinity gadget, Little Boy, Fat Man, and one more unused weapon) were produced by the end of 1945, making the average cost per bomb around $500 million in 1945 dollars. By comparison, the total price by the end of 1945 was about 60% of the total cost spent on all other bombs, mines, and grenades produced; 80% of all small arms materiel (not including ammunition); and 31% of the cost of all tanks produced, all during the same time period

3. On a positive note every internet argument wouldn't end with someone being called a Nazi

Jaskalas
03-29-2011, 09:51 AM
How would history have changed if Hitler hadn't killed Jews?No flight from Europe, no Israel, less US meddling and demonization in the Middle East? Think September 11th would have even happened? If not... think of all the resources we'd have to throw lavishly at bailouts. Wall-street would be in even 'better' shape than it is today.

Bush would have quite a different place in history, McCain would have won the election without the backlash?

Genx87
03-29-2011, 09:57 AM
Hitler didnt order the attack stopped in hope of peace. His commanders wanted it stopped so as to move more troops and equipment up to prevent a break out.

Genx87
03-29-2011, 10:01 AM
Germany had a nuclear program. But their aim and goal was for their submarine fleet. Not bombs.

mizzou
03-29-2011, 10:26 AM
Without hatred persecution of the jews you may as well forget the nazi party ever existed.

Chances are better the german socialist party would have succeeded and imagine a red russia and red germany together..... would have been a really interesting cold war

wuliheron
03-29-2011, 10:33 AM
,... all the while more allied soldiers continued to die. Yes, Hitler was incompetent.



And he got what was coming to him.

QuantumPion
03-29-2011, 10:39 AM
No flight from Europe, no Israel, less US meddling and demonization in the Middle East? Think September 11th would have even happened? If not... think of all the resources we'd have to throw lavishly at bailouts. Wall-street would be in even 'better' shape than it is today.

Bush would have quite a different place in history, McCain would have won the election without the backlash?

The flight from Europe and settlement of Jews in then-Palestine began in the 1800's due to general persecution throughout Europe and Russia. However history might have been very different - if the UN did not call for the creation of the state of Israel, any number of possibly events could have unfolded. Either side could have kicked the other out entirely, or they could all be living together in relative peace, or even remained a British territory.

Note however that this has no connection to 9/11 , Islam has been attacking the west since its inception. The main motivation for Bin Laden was that he protested our presence in and economic partnership with Saudi Arabia.

mizzou
03-29-2011, 10:52 AM
I love what if historical scenarios. World war two was close enough for comfort, many allied victories came against the odds. Give the germans any more advantage we would probably all be speaking german.

Schadenfroh
03-29-2011, 10:57 AM
Hitler did not care about atomic bombs. Other areas might have been slightly more advanced, however.

The holocaust would have still happened, but would have focused much more on other groups, like Gypsies (who were being exterminated as well).

Israel would likely not exist.

Give the germans any more advantage we would probably all be speaking german.
Maybe continental Europe. If Germany won, We would have had a Cold War with Germany and their Fascist block rather than Russia and their Communist Block. Hitler would have probably made peace with the UK, on favorable terms, rather than invading them after the Battle of Britain.

America would have still kicked Japan's ass and brought East Asia into our sphere of influence, with The Soviet Union out of the way, China would have become much like Japan is today after an Allied victory and Chiang Kai-shek finishing the Communists off (who lost their only supporter after a German victory on the Eastern Front).

ShawnD1
03-29-2011, 11:01 AM
Are you really that much of an idiot?

France and England made it very clear that attacking Poland would bring them into war with Germany so Hitler knew what he was doing.
Hitler had a hardcore problem with amphetamine addiction, so he probably thought Britain would be a cake walk. And Russia. And USA. And France.... well 1 out of 4 ain't bad :D


And yes Hitler would be seen a lot better. Nobody remembers Kaiser Wilhelm and he basically did the same thing 25 years earlier.

GoPackGo
03-29-2011, 11:06 AM
Hitler was months away from completing a V Rocket which would have been able to hit the East Coast.

rudeguy
03-29-2011, 11:07 AM
I love what if historical scenarios. World war two was close enough for comfort, many allied victories came against the odds. Give the germans any more advantage we would probably all be speaking german.

Me too. WWII had so many little things that changed the whole swing of the war and in turn changed history forever.


Back on point though. The full scale persecution of Jews happened AFTER Hitler came to power. He didn't come to power because of his views but power allowed him to act on them. So saying that Hitler wouldn't have been in power without them is completely false. He came to power because Germany was in full scale depression after WWI and he offered (and came through with) a way out of it.

ShawnD1
03-29-2011, 11:21 AM
Back on point though. The full scale persecution of Jews happened AFTER Hitler came to power. He didn't come to power because of his views but power allowed him to act on them. So saying that Hitler wouldn't have been in power without them is completely false. He came to power because Germany was in full scale depression after WWI and he offered (and came through with) a way out of it.
:ninja:
http://tpwdesign.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/obama-change-poster.jpg



And no the war was not close. The Germans had to defeat the Soviets then defeat the Americans. NEITHER of them were beaten. Even Britain survived the war, and that's not really a big country.

xj0hnx
03-29-2011, 11:37 AM
And no the war was not close. The Germans had to defeat the Soviets then defeat the Americans. NEITHER of them were beaten. Even Britain survived the war, and that's not really a big country.

I don't think he said the war was close, but there were many battles, and points in the war that were very close, that turned out to be monumental turning points in the war as a whole.

ProfJohn
03-29-2011, 12:07 PM
I love what if historical scenarios. World war two was close enough for comfort, many allied victories came against the odds. Give the germans any more advantage we would probably all be speaking german.
Not even close.

Even if the Jews and Nazis had been best friends and worked together Germany would have still lost the war in the long run. It would have just taken longer and cost a lot more lives.

By 1942 the US gdp was 3 times that of Germany. There was no way that Germany could win a war against a country with three times the industry and twice it's population. Especially considering that our home land was 100% free from attack during the whole war while Germany was pounded to bits.

The only reason so many of the battles were close is due to better Germany equipment and the fact that Germany was fighting a defensive war which makes it MUCH harder for the other side to win.

jonks
03-29-2011, 12:08 PM
I'd probably have a lot more cousins.

Matt1970
03-29-2011, 12:12 PM
America would have still kicked Japan's ass and brought East Asia into our sphere of influence, with The Soviet Union out of the way, China would have become much like Japan is today after an Allied victory and Chiang Kai-shek finishing the Communists off (who lost their only supporter after a German victory on the Eastern Front).



We got lucky with Japan. I forget the name of the battle but Japan was out gunning us pretty bad. By a fluke, one of the Japanese Admirals ordered their fighters to land and let the pilots rest before letting reserve pilots up in the air. That left 3 or 4 of their carriers without defenses and we pounced. Without that victory it would have been a very different war.

ProfJohn
03-29-2011, 12:24 PM
^ Midway

That was the turning point. But even if that hadn't happen the US still would have won once our industrial might started pouring out ships faster than the Japanese could even think about building ships.

We built 24 carriers during WW 2 the Japanese built 17 most of which were smaller ones. After the war stated the Japanese only build 4 larger carries compared to the 14 built by us.

Muse
03-29-2011, 12:28 PM
Hitler was a racist fascist dictator who persecuted everyone who wasn't pure Aryan. Whether he killed the Jews or not many would have fled the country. Especially the more highly educated ones who had the means to leave and could look forward to being treated better elsewhere. He also considered a lot of physics like Einstein's Relativity to be "communistic" and would never have supported such people. In other words, he was complete nut who was so incompetent that at one point when the allies had the chance to assassinate him they let him live so that he could force Germany to loose the war just that much faster.

Of course, if he wasn't a racist fascist then he never would have risen to power or tried to conquer the world.Hitler was pretty nutty. Let's hypothesize that he hadn't targeted the Jews, that he'd had the foresight to realize that they could help him in his efforts. If he'd targeted others, the Jews would have been suspicious that he would eventually target them (Jews historically, have been scapegoated, so they would have been very sensitive to this), and many would have fled, especially the ones who were better educated, the ones who could have helped Germany the most. Of course, if Hitler hadn't targeted anyone, he would have been a very different person, making this an absurd idea entirely.

Schadenfroh
03-29-2011, 12:38 PM
We got lucky with Japan.
...
Without that victory it would have been a very different war.

Even without the Battle of Midway and The Marianas Turkey Shoot, we would have won, it would have just taken longer. America had more people, greater industrial potential, more natural resources (in areas not prone to revolt), better technology and some damn good leadership. Japanese admirals with sense knew that they could not win a longterm war against America (best they could hope for was land grabs, short-term strategic victories and a peace agreement with favorable terms).

Without having to worry about Europe, all of our effort could have been focused on Japan. Japan also had to keep eastern Asia pacified, the population of those occupied areas would have revolted at the slightest hint of weakness. Not to mention, they were trying to occupy China as well, their troops would have to stay there to prevent revolts. That is a good bit of overhead and diversion of resources.

Our technology was comparable, better if we devoted our cutting edge technology to Asia instead of Europe and we (America, China and Australia) could have just zerged them to death if needed. The Japanese also did not have the balls to use chemical or biological weapons against Western Forces, although they used them against countries that did not have the ability to strike back (like China). If it came to it, we would have unleashed those weapons and ours were much better than theirs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

rudeguy
03-29-2011, 12:44 PM
We got lucky with Japan. I forget the name of the battle but Japan was out gunning us pretty bad. By a fluke, one of the Japanese Admirals ordered their fighters to land and let the pilots rest before letting reserve pilots up in the air. That left 3 or 4 of their carriers without defenses and we pounced. Without that victory it would have been a very different war.

you are thinking of Midway

The only reason Midway went down like it did was because we got one piece of code saying that target X would be attacked. We tricked Japan into revealing what target X was and we were able to defeat them because of that. If either of those two small things hadn't happened, Midway could have been a slaughter and we could have lost our last few carriers.

But that's the wrong front. The battle against Japan might as well have been a whole different war.

ShawnD1
03-29-2011, 12:52 PM
It would have just taken longer, America had more people and industrial might.
And more fuel. Germany was running a constant fuel shortage as well. It's really hard to fight a proper war when you have no fuel. It's like trying to pull rocks up a hill in a Corolla. It just won't go.

irrc, Japan attacking the US had something to do with a fuel shortage. Something like the US wouldn't sell fuel to Japan or was blocking some route or something. Don't quote me on that.

Matt1970
03-29-2011, 12:57 PM
Midway. That's the one.

Genx87
03-29-2011, 01:14 PM
We got lucky with Japan. I forget the name of the battle but Japan was out gunning us pretty bad. By a fluke, one of the Japanese Admirals ordered their fighters to land and let the pilots rest before letting reserve pilots up in the air. That left 3 or 4 of their carriers without defenses and we pounced. Without that victory it would have been a very different war.

Battle of Midway.

But I dont think if we lose the war in the Pacific if Midwar turned out different. The Japanese war machine was just dreadful, their strategy poor, and their navy was dwarfed by American industrial might. It may have prolonged the war. But the outcome would had been the same. And instead of 2 nukes maybe we drop 4 or 6.

Schadenfroh
03-29-2011, 01:15 PM
And more fuel. Germany was running a constant fuel shortage as well. It's really hard to fight a proper war when you have no fuel. It's like trying to pull rocks up a hill in a Corolla. It just won't go.

irrc, Japan attacking the US had something to do with a fuel shortage. Something like the US wouldn't sell fuel to Japan or was blocking some route or something. Don't quote me on that.

Yep, that was one of their justifications. America suspended oil exports to Japan (some other material / goods as well) after they started getting overly aggressive. Image that, America as an oil exporter...

I have read accounts of Kamikaze planes crashing into American ships and their Firestone tires (sold to Japan before the embargo) rolling across the deck.

Genx87
03-29-2011, 01:17 PM
you are thinking of Midway

The only reason Midway went down like it did was because we got one piece of code saying that target X would be attacked. We tricked Japan into revealing what target X was and we were able to defeat them because of that. If either of those two small things hadn't happened, Midway could have been a slaughter and we could have lost our last few carriers.

But that's the wrong front. The battle against Japan might as well have been a whole different war.

A Japanese destroyer that stayed back looking for a US sub lead US torpedo bombers to the main force as it steamed full speed ahead to catch up.

Oops lol

Matt1970
03-29-2011, 01:23 PM
Also one of the Japanese scout planes made an error judging our position before the initial attacks.

ayabe
03-29-2011, 01:27 PM
Without his hatred of the Jews, Hitler as we know him would never have existed, he would not have risen to power in Germany - his exploitation of fear and anxiety is what allowed that all to happen.

Here are a few what-if's I think about from time to time

1. What if that one German bomber crew had not accidentally dropped their bombs on London, triggering the British to bomb Berlin, which then caused the Germans to stop focusing on the British air fields and switch to targeting civilians - giving the RAF the breathing room they needed to recover and win the Battle of Britain.

2. What if Hitler had not invaded Russia in 1941 and instead focused on North Africa? He could have secured all the oil he wanted from the middle east since there were already promises made to Germany for helping get rid of the Brits.

3. What if Hitler required that the Japanese declare war on the Soviets as a condition for declaring war on the USA after Pearl Harbor? A Japanese incursion into eastern Russia would have prevented Stalin from transferring those troops west, perhaps allowing the Germans to win at Stalingrad.

piasabird
03-29-2011, 01:39 PM
It was a jew that found a way both to make fertilizer from the Air, and a way to make diesel from Coal. He worked for Germany. Otherwise they would have run out of fuel long before the end of the war. Interesting Irony.

See the book "Alchemy of the Air":

http://www.amazon.com/Alchemy-Air-Je.../dp/0307351785 (http://detonator.dynamitedata.com/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?user=u00000687&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FAlchemy-Air-Jewish-Scientific-Discovery%2Fdp%2F0307351785)

Maybe Jewish scientists would have flourished and solved more problems for the world.

wuliheron
03-29-2011, 01:40 PM
Hitler was pretty nutty. Let's hypothesize that he hadn't targeted the Jews, that he'd had the foresight to realize that they could help him in his efforts. If he'd targeted others, the Jews would have been suspicious that he would eventually target them (Jews historically, have been scapegoated, so they would have been very sensitive to this), and many would have fled, especially the ones who were better educated, the ones who could have helped Germany the most. Of course, if Hitler hadn't targeted anyone, he would have been a very different person, making this an absurd idea entirely.


It's also absurd because the US simply had far greater resources to devote to the project and at best Hitler would have developed the bomb 2 years after us even if he had the brightest physicists at his disposal. Scientists aren't magicians who can conjure things out of thin air no matter how bright they might be and the basic theories required were already well known. The details were the sticking point and those required as much trial and error as brains to figure out.

Exterous
03-29-2011, 02:25 PM
By 1942 the US gdp was 3 times that of Germany. There was no way that Germany could win a war against a country with three times the industry and twice it's population. Especially considering that our home land was 100% free from attack during the whole war while Germany was pounded to bits.

If the Germans managed to take Britain I think they would stand a very good chance of preventing the US from gaining a foothold on Europe

We got lucky with Japan. I forget the name of the battle but Japan was out gunning us pretty bad. By a fluke, one of the Japanese Admirals ordered their fighters to land and let the pilots rest before letting reserve pilots up in the air. That left 3 or 4 of their carriers without defenses and we pounced. Without that victory it would have been a very different war.

^ Midway

That was the turning point. But even if that hadn't happen the US still would have won once our industrial might started pouring out ships faster than the Japanese could even think about building ships.

I agree with ProfJohn and Admiral Yamamoto said pretty much the same thing. The heavy industry just didn't exist in Asia at that time to complete with the US

Now a much more interesting question is how would the war have been different if the Axis had been a lot better with their electronic signal encryption

tommo123
03-29-2011, 04:38 PM
i might be wrong, but once hitler decided to attack russia, wasn't a large amount of germanys forces involved in that war?

what would have happened if hitler had kept the non aggression pact with russia, or worse still, if they somehow joined forces? i.e, iirc, germany invaded russia during the winter which caused major problems. if they had done this sooner, they would have (again, iirc) gone straight through to moscow and taken the country.

senseamp
03-29-2011, 05:25 PM
If Hitler was not a homicidal maniac, big parts of USSR would have voluntarily joined him to fight Stalin, as some Baltic states did. Instead he gave them a choice between a homicidal maniac they knew and one they didn't, so it was a tough call to make.

Genx87
03-29-2011, 06:07 PM
i might be wrong, but once hitler decided to attack russia, wasn't a large amount of germanys forces involved in that war?

what would have happened if hitler had kept the non aggression pact with russia, or worse still, if they somehow joined forces? i.e, iirc, germany invaded russia during the winter which caused major problems. if they had done this sooner, they would have (again, iirc) gone straight through to moscow and taken the country.

Yes the moajority of Germany's fighting forces were in the East. Also most of their best units were also utilized on that front. I dont think Hitler could keep that pact. Ideologically speaking communism and national socialism were at odds and Hitler's book outlines the need to first take control of Ukraine agriculture and then eradicate\enslave the slavs in that region for the benefit of the Nazi state. Plus I think the Soviets were planning to push West some time in 1942 anyways. It was a matter of time until those two ideologies dukes it out.

Germany invaded the Soviet Union on June 22nd 1941. They were at the Moscow outskirts in November. They could had taken Moscow in October but turned a large amount of Army group center back to help encircle 650,000 soviet troops around kiev. They did this because Army Group south did not have the stength to keep the circle. This set them back 1 month. That 1 month allowed reinforcements from the far East to arrive and the winter to set in. I firmly believe if the Germans take Moscow in October. The whole of the Soviet union falls. Their rail system went through Moscow. Stalin would be captured or dead. And they could push to the Urals and keep the far east troops from helping.

Schadenfroh
03-29-2011, 07:54 PM
The Reds were moving their factories and command / control facilities out of Moscow and to the Ural Mountains. Capturing Moscow would have served four goals, boosting German morale, encouraging Japan to strike (a seemingly weakened) Russia in the east (although, I do not think they had plans to help their German allies out), demoralizing the Soviets (unlikely to be effective against Russians, maybe the other Soviet forces) and controlling the railroad hub (as mentioned by Genx87). The Soviets would have likely burned Moscow to the ground (see Napoleonic Wars) and destroyed the railroad hub if the Germans were to capture it. Stalin would have secretly left the city and headed to one of their command / control facilities in the Ural mountains if things got dicey, although they would have claimed he was in the city till the end.

The encirclement campaigns were necessary, you do not want large Soviet armies slipping into the wilderness. Napoleon had trouble with this and they were right to encircle the Reds to keep from making his mistakes. But, the problem with the Eastern Front was no clear objective other than destroying the Soviet Army itself. It seems they could not make up their minds whether or not to take certain cities or to focus on oil fields (a wiser choice, IMO). By the time they seem to be ready to take a target, they change their minds and go for another objective. Oddly enough, this sometimes actually helped at the task of defeating the main Soviet Army as their actions seemed illogical and attacks came in unexpected places. But, tactical victories do not equal strategic victory.

Another issue was the way the Axis treated the Soviet POWs and civilians. They treated Western Europeans far, far better than Eastern Europeans and American / British POWs much, much better than Soviet POWs. Take it, The Soviet Union did not agree to the rules of civilized warfare, but Germany did sign. The Soviets returned the brutality, several fold. Civilians notice that kind of thing.

If Germany had backed the underground Nationalist movements (which were somewhat pro-German till Germany occupied their countries and were shown to be exceedingly cruel) in the Soviet satellite states and went in as liberators, setting up anti-communist republics free of Soviet oppression, they could have held on to territory with much greater ease. But, they treated the Nationalists like Communists and thus like animals. There was a violent suppression of a Polish revolt towards the end of the war that words cannot describe, suffice to say the Nazis executed one of the commanders of the forces sent to put down the revolt for being too cruel...

But, hindsight is 20/20, many analysts were predicting the Soviet Union to fall in only a few months.

PieIsAwesome
03-29-2011, 08:13 PM
Are you really that much of an idiot?

France and England made it very clear that attacking Poland would bring them into war with Germany so Hitler knew what he was doing.

If China was to invade Canada and we went to their defense would it be okay for the Chinese to claim that they didn't want a war with the US?

That would be aggression on their part. Germany didn't attack France or Britain. Germany attacked Poland after much warning because it would not return land and German citizens (in particular the city of Danzig) that rightfully belonged to Germany.

If Hitler weren't such a homicidal maniac, he would have been remembered as a hero that tried to reunify and restore Germany. If he had been successful, he would also have been remembered for exacting revenge on the British and especially the French.

Emos
03-29-2011, 08:54 PM
I have to agree with Schadenfroh's assessment. For anyone who's interested in the East Front of WWII, I would recommend downloading a podcast that Dan Carlin has called "Hardcore History". His "Ghosts of the Ostfront" series was captivating IMHO...

glenn1
03-29-2011, 09:06 PM
What if Hitler hadn't killed/persecuted Jews?

Stalin would have picked up the slack; the only difference is instead of rounding them up at once and finishing them off relatively quickly via Zyklon B they would have been sent piecemeal to the gulag to die slowly.

CallMeJoe
03-29-2011, 09:07 PM
...This set them back 1 month. That 1 month allowed reinforcements from the far East to arrive and the winter to set in. I firmly believe if the Germans take Moscow in October...
You also should consider Operation Marita. Germany was forced to intervene in Greece when their Italian allies were routed and the Balkans were exposed to British invasion. This operation (started in April 1941) both delayed the start of Operation Barbarossa and depleted some of the armored units so critical to success on the Steppes.

Doppel
03-29-2011, 09:37 PM
Hitler was a racist fascist dictator who persecuted everyone who wasn't pure Aryan. Whether he killed the Jews or not many would have fled the country. Especially the more highly educated ones who had the means to leave and could look forward to being treated better elsewhere. He also considered a lot of physics like Einstein's Relativity to be "communistic" and would never have supported such people. In other words, he was complete nut who was so incompetent that at one point when the allies had the chance to assassinate him they let him live so that he could force Germany to loose the war just that much faster.

Of course, if he wasn't a racist fascist then he never would have risen to power or tried to conquer the world.Incompetent? He overran Europe and brought one of the world's super powers to its knees, taking out other countries like I take down cookies at a buffet, finally overcome only by the concerted effort of multiple industrialized nations.

Nobody says you need to like the guy, and he made plenty of mistakes (as all sides did), but he was far from incompetent. To label him as such we must conclude thus that the Allied forces were only very slightly less incompetent.

I don't think it's a small feat to take a country ravaged by war and put through the ringer and a mere three decades later have it rise so high it's once again threatening an entire continent.

wuliheron
03-29-2011, 11:43 PM
Incompetent? He overran Europe and brought one of the world's super powers to its knees, taking out other countries like I take down cookies at a buffet, finally overcome only by the concerted effort of multiple industrialized nations.

Nobody says you need to like the guy, and he made plenty of mistakes (as all sides did), but he was far from incompetent. To label him as such we must conclude thus that the Allied forces were only very slightly less incompetent.

I don't think it's a small feat to take a country ravaged by war and put through the ringer and a mere three decades later have it rise so high it's once again threatening an entire continent.


He was obviously competent enough to get the ball rolling in a sort of brute force Mafia style way, but also crazy enough to get himself killed and his country destroyed. At times the average lifespan of mob members dips down to 2 or 3 years. If that's your idea of success and competence then I'm sure they have plenty of work available.

bigwave2001
10-29-2011, 07:06 PM
wow, look if there were more manpower the war would have lasted longer in which time the V rocket would have finished being developed. Also more manpower would have been crucial to the battle of Britain which could have been a victory for the Luftwaffe. Also the people fighting for Britain would have had a lower morale because then there would be one huge horrible thing that Hitler hadn't done and that was one of the reasons that so many people hated Hitler. Also with the combined power of the V missile and the Luftwaffe Hitler would have been able to take over Britain. In which time he could have put his resources on stopping the war and with the V missile he could have easily defended his newly earned territory. Then as he saw the huge success the V missile was he could have passed it on to the Japs and with that on their ships they could have easily destroyed America. And today I would be writing in a forum about what if our great leader Hitler hated Jews in GERMAN.:awe:

William Gaatjes
10-29-2011, 07:39 PM
Hitler was a racist fascist dictator who persecuted everyone who wasn't pure Aryan. Whether he killed the Jews or not many would have fled the country. Especially the more highly educated ones who had the means to leave and could look forward to being treated better elsewhere. He also considered a lot of physics like Einstein's Relativity to be "communistic" and would never have supported such people. In other words, he was complete nut who was so incompetent that at one point when the allies had the chance to assassinate him they let him live so that he could force Germany to loose the war just that much faster.

Of course, if he wasn't a racist fascist then he never would have risen to power or tried to conquer the world.

It is not that strange.
Hitlers was saturated with lethal chemicals by his physician Theodor Morell.
Theodor Morell experimented by injecting Hitler with all kinds of chemicals.
Hitler was crazy as he was, but all that methamphetamine and more sure did not help...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Morell#Substances_given_to_Hitler


Amphetamines Belladonna
Atropine Caffeine Chamomile Cocaine (via eye drops) E. coli Enzymes Glyconorm Methamphetamine Morphine Nux Vomica (a form of strychnine) Oxedrine Tartrate Potassium bromide Prophenazone Proteins and lipids derived from animal tissues and fats Sodium barbitone Sulphonamide Testosterone Vitamins

William Gaatjes
10-29-2011, 07:48 PM
Incompetent? He overran Europe and brought one of the world's super powers to its knees, taking out other countries like I take down cookies at a buffet, finally overcome only by the concerted effort of multiple industrialized nations.

Nobody says you need to like the guy, and he made plenty of mistakes (as all sides did), but he was far from incompetent. To label him as such we must conclude thus that the Allied forces were only very slightly less incompetent.

I don't think it's a small feat to take a country ravaged by war and put through the ringer and a mere three decades later have it rise so high it's once again threatening an entire continent.

German generals where very good as well. And Germany was extremely far ahead technology wise at the time. The tape recorder was invented in Germany during the war. At that time they knew how poisonous tobacco was and that it was a cause for cancer. Many basic discoveries where done in Germany on the field of RF electronics and radar. And there was one more thing... More then once, German infantry seemed indestructible. But that was because they where filled up with Pervitin.

http://amphetamines.com/nazi.html


The Nazis preached abstinence in the name of promoting national health. But when it came to fighting their Blitzkrieg, they had no qualms about pumping their soldiers full of drugs and alcohol. Speed was the drug of choice, but many others became addicted to morphine and alcohol.

In a letter dated November 9, 1939, to his "dear parents and siblings" back home in Cologne, a young soldier stationed in occupied Poland wrote: "It's tough out here, and I hope you'll understand if I'm only able to write to you once every two to four days soon. Today I'm writing you mainly to ask for some Pervitin ...; Love, Hein."

Pervitin, a stimulant commonly known as speed today, was the German army's -- the Wehrmacht's -- wonder drug.

On May 20, 1940, the 22-year-old soldier wrote to his family again: "Perhaps you could get me some more Pervitin so that I can have a backup supply?" And, in a letter sent from Bromberg on July 19, 1940, he wrote: "If at all possible, please send me some more Pervitin." The man who wrote these letters became a famous writer later in life. He was Heinrich Boell, and in 1972 he was the first German to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in the post-war period.

Many of the Wehrmacht's soldiers were high on Pervitin when they went into battle, especially against Poland and France -- in a Blitzkrieg fueled by speed. The German military was supplied with millions of methamphetamine tablets during the first half of 1940. The drugs were part of a plan to help pilots, sailors and infantry troops become capable of superhuman performance. The military leadership liberally dispensed such stimulants, but also alcohol and opiates, as long as it believed drugging and intoxicating troops could help it achieve victory over the Allies. But the Nazis were less than diligent in monitoring side-effects like drug addiction and a decline in moral standards.

Harvey
10-29-2011, 07:55 PM
Also the people fighting for Britain would have had a lower morale because then there would be one huge horrible thing that Hitler hadn't done and that was one of the reasons that so many people hated Hitler.

Bullshit! Hitler bombed the living shit out of Britain, irrespective of his other attrocities. The Brits didn't need his anti-semitic acts to inspire them to fight. They were well aware of Hitler's murderous conquests of the rest of Western Europe, and they knew he was as destructively anti-Roma (gypsy), anti-intellectual, anti-homosexual and more, as well. Fighting was their only option for survival.

On top of that, the U.S. didn't elect to go to war against Hitler. Hitler declared war on the U.S. on December 11, 1941, four days after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and Congress declared war on Japan. The good news for us is, it was one of his worst decisions.

Lemon law
10-29-2011, 08:29 PM
In my opinion, this thread is somewhat dubious. It was not just Germany, almost all of Europe was anti-Semitic. Einstein may have been German or more properly Austrian, but other than lending his credibility, he had little to do with the Manhattan project. And Dr. Teller was Hungarian and Fermi was Italian so it was not just German Jews that brainstormed the building of the first A-bombs.

Nor were the causes of WW2 much to do with Jews, as Hitler on the rampage got all the publicity, while bitterly complaining Jewish leaders got ignored during WW2. Only when allied soldiers at the end of WW2 over ran Nazi extermination camps was the full Hitler brutality discovered, as Hitler murdered far more Slav's than Jews, and by a wide 50 million to six million margin.

As the Hitler suicide was motivated by Russian armies closing in on Berlin from a wide variety of directions.

But still the Jewish Holocaust during WW2 would have not happened without broad European support from almost every nation in Europe.

K1052
10-29-2011, 09:16 PM
wow, look if there were more manpower the war would have lasted longer in which time the V rocket would have finished being developed. Also more manpower would have been crucial to the battle of Britain which could have been a victory for the Luftwaffe. Also the people fighting for Britain would have had a lower morale because then there would be one huge horrible thing that Hitler hadn't done and that was one of the reasons that so many people hated Hitler. Also with the combined power of the V missile and the Luftwaffe Hitler would have been able to take over Britain. In which time he could have put his resources on stopping the war and with the V missile he could have easily defended his newly earned territory. Then as he saw the huge success the V missile was he could have passed it on to the Japs and with that on their ships they could have easily destroyed America. And today I would be writing in a forum about what if our great leader Hitler hated Jews in GERMAN.:awe:

The V weapons while technologically revolutionary did not possess the ability to force the UK to end the war. Only the U-boat force had that ability and Hitler went to war too early, with too few submarines and wasted resources on surface ships. Our sub forces strangled Japan in much the same way in 43-45.

bart1975
10-29-2011, 09:19 PM
Would Hitler be considered more or less evil if instead of killing the Jews he just gave them noogies?

PingviN
10-29-2011, 10:14 PM
The more interesting question would probably be what'd happen if Hitler had not invaded the Soviet Union in '41 and instead kept to the Molotov-Ribbentorp agreement. World War II wasn't so much won on the western front as it was lost on the eastern front. Without Nazi Germany and USSR battling it out, who knows what would've happened to Britain. Would the US move in to try and reclaim the UK without a foothold in Europe?

K1052
10-29-2011, 10:29 PM
The more interesting question would probably be what'd happen if Hitler had not invaded the Soviet Union in '41 and instead kept to the Molotov-Ribbentorp agreement. World War II wasn't so much won on the western front as it was lost on the eastern front. Without Nazi Germany and USSR battling it out, who knows what would've happened to Britain. Would the US move in to try and reclaim the UK without a foothold in Europe?

Hitler never had any intention of keeping the pact, he had his sights on the USSR long before he came to power and for the entire time after (see Generalplan Ost). Hitler didn't allow any time for letting the Wehrmacht prepare for winter combat or to press the attack on Moscow as early as possible. Two foreseeable problems if he had ever bothered to read his history.

PingviN
10-29-2011, 11:11 PM
Hitler never had any intention of keeping the pact, he had his sights on the USSR long before he came to power and for the entire time after (see Generalplan Ost). Hitler didn't allow any time for letting the Wehrmacht prepare for winter combat or to press the attack on Moscow as early as possible. Two foreseeable problems if he had ever bothered to read his history.

This is kinda my point, I don't know if it got lost in translation. The attack on the Soviet was premature, it was an all-or-nothing attack that was not necessary at the moment.

Edit: I'm not saying the attack would've never taken place, I'm just speculating in the outcome had the Wehrmacht been prepared and the timing improved.

HeXen
10-29-2011, 11:16 PM
is it true that the estimated number of jews who were killed was some 12 million?
what i wonder is how many more people would occupy the planet if they lived.

Lemon law
10-29-2011, 11:18 PM
The V weapons while technologically revolutionary did not possess the ability to force the UK to end the war. Only the U-boat force had that ability and Hitler went to war too early, with too few submarines and wasted resources on surface ships. Our sub forces strangled Japan in much the same way in 43-45.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an amateur historian of WW2, I have to somewhat quibble with K1052 in terms of the importance of subs in Germany and especially the Pacific theaters of war.

K1052 is somewhat correct on German subs during the 1939-42 phases of the Atlantic German phases of the war, dubbed the happy years by German submariners. As German engineering and mass production perfected fast assembly of new and faster submarines with longer range. But better sonar systems plus the convoy system allowed the allied forces to keep German sub sinking at pace with German production. But the real end to subs came with the British invention of the magnetron, a sub centimeter radar system small enough to fit on planes. And as the allied forces had gained the air advantage, subs were dumb, fat, and happy when they surfaced to charge their batteries at night. Unaware that land based planes could see them plain as day.

But in the Pacific is where K1052 is most wrong, as few Japanese or US subs had the range to operate in a 5000 mile Ocean. As the Japs based their whole strategy on knocking out the US Naval forces at Pearl Harbor. And while the Japs decremented most of the US Pacific Ocean battleships, the US carriers, had already put to sea a few days before. Leaving the USA almost defenseless to a greatly superior Japanese Navy,. As Japan had more carriers, battleships, and naval assets of all types. But no where was the disparity as great as in the quality of Japanese planes and pilot training. But after Pearl Harbor could not really press their advantage, as they were consumed with chasing out any remaining European Naval assets and capturing all the colonial assets of Southeast Asia. That would allow them the natural resources to sustain a war economy almost indefinitely. As the whole Pacific Ocean became an Japanese lake where nothing could trespass.

The US in 1942 had only one advantage, they had cracked the Japanese Naval code and learned Midway Island was the next target. As the US gambled all their carriers in a gamble to surprise a vastly superior Japanese armada, consisting of 4 carriers, the most modern battleships, plus a huge number of troop transports that should have made taking midway Island a piece of cake. The Japs struck first as they bombed and the Island and shot down and allied planes. Little aware 3 US carriers were lying in ambush to the Northwest. As the US carriers were first to detect the Japanese carriers and all three launched strikes with decidedly inferior US planes of various types in an ill co-originated attack. As the Japs shot down wave after wave of US planes with their vastly superior zero fighters until the USA got incredibly lucky. In repelling a ill fated set of torpedo bombers it pulled their zero fighters down to a low altitude, just as a set of late arriving US dive bombers found themselves over the entire four carriers at high altitude. And even then found themselves double lucky as all four Jap carriers were rearming and fueling. And soon 3 of the four Jap carriers were ablaze and sinking, and the other was badly wounded. As the Japanese invasion of midway was called off.

After that it was simply what Yamotota feared, once the war economy of the USA gained critical mass, it could out produce Japan by a wide margin, and even if the Japs still retained a descent Navy, it became worthless as the Japs could no longer obtain the oil to fuel them as the brilliant MacArthur Island hopping strategy soon found its self withing B-29 bombing range.

We can somewhat ask was an A-bomb Necessary to finish Japan off to avoid the casualties of a US invasion? If the US had waited a few months, Japan would be forced to surrender because it could no longer feed its own people who were already starving as it was.

K1052
10-29-2011, 11:30 PM
Most US subs in service as of 41-42 and thereafter had cruise ranges of 10K+ miles. They were also faster submerged and surfaced than their Axis counterparts. What we did not have were the commanders/torpedoes/strategy to press our advantage unil late 43. Technologically speaking US submarines were probably the most advanced at the outbreak of the war. The downside was that we had no idea how to actually use them and even fewer commanders who actually would.

Only in 43 did we get the confluence of working torpedoes and skippers who were daring enough to use them. First on Japanese surface combatants then on their merchant fleet (which is what really drove the Japanese to a halt).

K1052
10-29-2011, 11:34 PM
We can somewhat ask was an A-bomb Necessary to finish Japan off to avoid the casualties of a US invasion? If the US had waited a few months, Japan would be forced to surrender because it could no longer feed its own people who were already starving as it was.

To address this point the Japanese were already mostly starving and had been for a couple years. The submarine service sinking pretty much all cargo traffic had ground inter-island shipping to a halt. The USAF bombed the crap of out of the already shaky Japanese rail network. They physically couldn't get food from the fields (though already diminished due to crop failure) into population centers.

Had we staked out the country for even a few more months with a naval blockade the deaths from famine would have been in the millions.

gevorg
10-29-2011, 11:44 PM
Hitler would still have no chance of winning, with Jews or not. USSR alone was able to defeat over 70% of Nazi forces. And it wasn't the most technologically advanced country, at least in the beginning of the war.

sandorski
10-29-2011, 11:54 PM
The Holocaust had little to do with the War itself. Germany would have still lost, they just wouldn't have the shame of the Holocaust to live with.

HeXen
10-30-2011, 08:34 AM
Hitler would still have no chance of winning, with Jews or not. USSR alone was able to defeat over 70% of Nazi forces. And it wasn't the most technologically advanced country, at least in the beginning of the war.

I believe a lot of that was due to the Nazi's diesel fuel freezing up. so many of their tanks..etc became useless. They literally just stopped running right in the middle of battle often. Also the soldiers were not properly attired for the cold weather that the USSR had.

I think if Germany would have kept to itself and not attack others, they probably would have continued for quite some time.

William Gaatjes
10-30-2011, 08:38 AM
I believe a lot of that was due to the Nazi's diesel fuel freezing up. so many of their tanks..etc became useless. They literally just stopped running right in the middle of battle often. Also the soldiers were not properly attired for the cold weather that the USSR had.

I think if Germany would have kept to itself and not attack others, they probably would have continued for quite some time.

Indeed, if the Germans had not had the dumb plan to attack the Russians on Russian ground in the winter, the outcome would have been different and the WW II war would have taken longer. Lucky all of us, i would say.

William Gaatjes
10-30-2011, 08:42 AM
In my opinion, this thread is somewhat dubious. It was not just Germany, almost all of Europe was anti-Semitic. Einstein may have been German or more properly Austrian, but other than lending his credibility, he had little to do with the Manhattan project. And Dr. Teller was Hungarian and Fermi was Italian so it was not just German Jews that brainstormed the building of the first A-bombs.

Nor were the causes of WW2 much to do with Jews, as Hitler on the rampage got all the publicity, while bitterly complaining Jewish leaders got ignored during WW2. Only when allied soldiers at the end of WW2 over ran Nazi extermination camps was the full Hitler brutality discovered, as Hitler murdered far more Slav's than Jews, and by a wide 50 million to six million margin.

As the Hitler suicide was motivated by Russian armies closing in on Berlin from a wide variety of directions.

But still the Jewish Holocaust during WW2 would have not happened without broad European support from almost every nation in Europe.

It is true that in times of misery and poverty, a scapegoat will always be appointed anyware. For many little reasons (but together become serious in influencing the opinion of other non Jews) , this seems to be always the Jews, the gypsies, the poor, foreigners and so on. In Europe this was not different.

Orignal Earl
10-30-2011, 09:02 AM
It is true that in times of misery and poverty, a scapegoat will always be appointed anyware. `

Just like the Muslims, Mexicans and Mormons today

EagleKeeper
10-30-2011, 10:06 AM
And no the war was not close. The Germans had to defeat the Soviets then defeat the Americans. NEITHER of them were beaten. Even Britain survived the war, and that's not really a big country.

Britain was not beaten only because of US aid making it through. The resources that Germany could bring against her were much greater than what she had. The sea blockade and aerial attacks would have worn her down.

The two primary mistakes were

Going after the Soviets (To soon and with to little.)
Targeting the population centers of England rather than the industrial sector.
Two front wars are dangerous

mammador
10-30-2011, 10:09 AM
The whole point of Nazism was to oppress the so-called lesser races. The Holocaust was planned all along.

Germany lost the war due to poor strategic planning, largely brought on by Hitler himself.

Orignal Earl
10-30-2011, 10:11 AM
Britain was not beaten only because of US aid making it through.

What about all the other countries supplying Britain with aid?

William Gaatjes
10-30-2011, 01:49 PM
`

Just like the Muslims, Mexicans and Mormons today

The problem is also the rituals. If someone would have a ritual that would cause negative emotions with others, then that person will be a scapegoat.
Of course we must also not forget that there are rotten apples to be found in every garden. And these rotten apples amplify a certain negative mindset with others. Add a little propaganda on top of that. And a very volatile situation will arise.

Saved the best for last : Language barriers.

Ensured cause for problems :
Language barriers (this causes large amounts of paranoia). Rituals. Rotten apples. Propaganda.

Doppel
10-30-2011, 02:14 PM
Hitler actually didn't want war with Britain; Britain was the aggressor, as usual.Too f**king bad. He probably didn't want war with the US and Canada, either.

Infohawk
10-30-2011, 02:19 PM
Well if Hitler didn't hate Jews he wouldn't have risen to power. Other politicians would have capitalized on that demand in Germany. The real question is, would other far-right parties have stayed in power and executed their ideology so ferociously? I tend to think not. I think Hitler was the wrong guy at the wrong time. I think others wouldn't have gone so far except maybe to marginalize Jews which would have been undone decades later.

Germany's WW2 conquests don't make sense without racial /religious hatred. I don't think they would have happened without it.

eskimospy
10-30-2011, 02:35 PM
Absolutely nothing would have changed if Hitler didn't try to kill the Jews. He placed his country in a total war with the 3 greatest industrial powers on Earth in a long term war of production.

The resources Germany expended on the Holocaust were trivial as compared to both their production and the production gap between Germany and its enemies.

William Gaatjes
10-30-2011, 03:28 PM
Absolutely nothing would have changed if Hitler didn't try to kill the Jews. He placed his country in a total war with the 3 greatest industrial powers on Earth in a long term war of production.

The resources Germany expended on the Holocaust were trivial as compared to both their production and the production gap between Germany and its enemies.

I will always wonder about how much unethical research was done by the Germans on Jews and other people. Most of this research is used later on in life by other countries. There is also the question, how many Jews where having technical professions and professions in natural philosophy that where chased out of Germany. Deliberately forgetting the Jews with professions in the financial industry.


EDIT:
I almost forgot my comment...
I think a lot would have changed. I think Hitler would had been able to continue his expansion and a large part of the EU would be speaking Deutsch, just as perhaps Deutsch would have been the first language in Israel as by the wish of Theodore Herzl. I think it is important not to forget the influence of the Jews who where already living in the US at the time.

Spikesoldier
10-30-2011, 03:47 PM
hitler would have got the a-bomb developed for him by the jewish scientists, nazi germany would have conquered the world, then hitler would put all the jews concentrated into a city and nuke it from orbit.