the true World War 2 scenario

Everyone always thinks that the Nazi's would have ruled the world and reigned terror for many generations if the US had not come in and defeated them. The true thing that would have happened would be exacly what happened to the Soviet Union. THeir collected countries after about 50 years would start to rebel and break away no matter how big the Nazi war machine would be. In World War 2 it doesnt matter who won because it would all even out 50 years later anyways after political, civil, and military dissidence. To back my evidence look at how Russia looks today compared to 30 years ago.

The flaw in your comparison is that the Soviet Union did NOT rule the world but was opposed by a very formidable coalition of states. Also, the Soviet Union was actually a very weak state, made to look strong only by massive military spending and a veil of secrecy.

Germany, on the other hand, was genuinely strong, with a strong economy and sense of purpose. I think you could make a good speculative argument that had it not blown it in Russia, it could have lasted as a European empire, althoug personally I think that once Hitler was off the scene from old age, the Reich would have disintegrated. Strong man regimes just don't survive the founder. See Cuba for the next example.

Right neither one would have ruled the world but i was talking about their "empires" of different countries and how they would have played out over time.

Hitler planned his empire to last a 1000 years even he knew it couldn't last forever. But he thought it would last alot longer then 50 years. Nobody has ever conquered the whole world so I dont know if it can be done and held. Many people have came close taking over what they thought was the world. Some made their empires last a very long time too.

If he took over the way Rome did by often making peoples lives better after the invasion "romanized" them in away. Then most people wont want to revolt and your empire could last for a very long time.

Originally posted by AlexofSkye
The flaw in your comparison is that the Soviet Union did NOT rule the world but was opposed by a very formidable coalition of states. Also, the Soviet Union was actually a very weak state, made to look strong only by massive military spending and a veil of secrecy.

Germany, on the other hand, was genuinely strong, with a strong economy and sense of purpose. I think you could make a good speculative argument that had it not blown it in Russia, it could have lasted as a European empire, althoug personally I think that once Hitler was off the scene from old age, the Reich would have disintegrated. Strong man regimes just don't survive the founder. See Cuba for the next example.

Very well said. I agree that this is a bad analogy. Does anyone know if Germany had grand plans to span continents beyond Asia and Europe? I am interested to know if Hitler planned for America to be conquered and Germanized.

Zip

Hitler wanted to leave out America. There were plans to conquer South America but they had been undeveloped because there was no imminent need.

The Nazis basically wanted the Western and Northern Europeans to rule.
They wanted to conquer the Soviet union and the Slavic Eastern European Countries for room and Ressources and then wipe out the natives or keep them as uneducated farm slaves(poland)
Britain and France were only fought because they would have distracted the Eastern Front. They were not to be wiped out. Their regime would have been changed. Our Secret Service tried to win the former Heir to the throne for ruling England.

The Problems would have been different than in the Soviet Union. The Economy would have collapsed after some time and the many little Hitlers would have fought each other after the original one died.

Dont forget the middel east and north africa..

yeah of course he did, he just didnt have the help from aliens like the nazis on star trek: enterprise!

Originally posted by JoeHead
Everyone always thinks that the Nazi's would have ruled the world and reigned terror for many generations if the US had not come in and defeated them.

*cough* Do you really think it was solely the US that defeated them? Do you think the US alone could have defeated them? What about the Brits and Russians? The Russians had better tech and even hit Berlin first. The US was not as powerful as Germany. The US helped, yes, but you need to give credit to others... Heck, even the Canadians contributed.

if the US had not come in and defeated them

Dont get me wrong but the US alone did not just walk in and defeat Germany don't forget British and Russians as well thank you. Just that bit upset me a bit thats all.

So you think a Nazi government would have just let people break away into separate states?

There is a valid argument there, however, the Reich was alot deeper than Castro's group. Plus you could have had what initially happened after Caesar was assinated which is where Rome broke into many factions, only to be defeated or allied by Augustus in an effort to keep the Empire in one piece.

I personally have always held that if the European campaign by Hitler had been succesful, and the allies had been forced to retreat, Hitler probably would have been assinated by one of his closest confidonts inside the Reich. We have to remember that Hitler was not the only powerful Nazi in WWII Germany. He just happened to be the figure head.

Good comments but I am only talking about Hitler in Europe and possibly Russia. Anything past those holdings of land would probably not last much more than 20 years for several reasons. I know that many countries have almost as much land as Europe but they aren't several different countries grouped together and placed under tyranny. I used Russia as an example because it was one of the modern examples of a nation incorporating other nations into its main body and keeping them together under a relentless iron fist. I believe that this would have been the closest comparison to a possible German European Empire.

Originally posted by Washball
There is a valid argument there, however, the Reich was alot deeper than Castro's group. Plus you could have had what initially happened after Caesar was assinated which is where Rome broke into many factions, only to be defeated or allied by Augustus in an effort to keep the Empire in one piece.

I personally have always held that if the European campaign by Hitler had been succesful, and the allies had been forced to retreat, Hitler probably would have been assinated by one of his closest confidonts inside the Reich. We have to remember that Hitler was not the only powerful Nazi in WWII Germany. He just happened to be the figure head.

Hitler was far from a figurehead - he was a true leader. That man could manipulate time and space with his words, just like all of the world's strongest leaders have.

Zip

Interesting thoughts, guys.

I think Tsuribito has it right in terms of intent. As far as the middle east is concerned, their interest was strategic - the oil reserves, and to deny Britain the use of the Suez Canal, cutting them off from their Eastern empire. Africa was actually an Italian play, although the Germans had to come in and bail them out.

Thanks for catching the popular (at least, in the US) misconception that the US came in and won the war for everyone. It was definitely a group effort. You could make a good argument that it was Russia's role that was vital. They were already turning the tide long before D-Day. But I don't want to go too far down this road - there's no question that US involvement at the very least shortened the war by years, and may well have prevented a stalemate.

I agree that the "strong man" theory is only part of a more complex picture. I focussed on that because Hitler was the prime mover. In fact, the Nazis would have found themselves at the center of a grouping of nationalities, all restive and eager to re-establish themselves, much like the former Soviet republics. It could not have lasted. You could also speculate that even if Hitler had not invaded Russia when he did, it would only have been a matter of time before one or the other initiated the final brawl. So, dissolution by internal or external forces, or both. Take your pick.

Originally posted by Zipdot

Originally posted by Washball
There is a valid argument there, however, the Reich was alot deeper than Castro's group. Plus you could have had what initially happened after Caesar was assinated which is where Rome broke into many factions, only to be defeated or allied by Augustus in an effort to keep the Empire in one piece.

I personally have always held that if the European campaign by Hitler had been succesful, and the allies had been forced to retreat, Hitler probably would have been assinated by one of his closest confidonts inside the Reich. We have to remember that Hitler was not the only powerful Nazi in WWII Germany. He just happened to be the figure head.

Hitler was far from a figurehead - he was a true leader. That man could manipulate time and space with his words, just like all of the world's strongest leaders have.

Zip

True Leader and persuasive speaker. He had the abilty to make people believe and follow. Though I thought he was insane, I admire his skills.


Strongest Leaders? Please don't tell me Stalin. =)

[edit on 30-11-2004 by BurningAces]

True Leader and persuasive speaker. He had the abilty to make people believe and follow. Though I thought he was insane, I admire his skills.

well, I admire his skills to manipulate the people..nothing more. Hitler could have won the eastern front if it was'nt for his lack of millitary skills. Besides, the real psycophats in the nazi regime was Himmler, the architect behind "Endlusung"

oh yea this reminds me of a theory that hitler was planning to go to Antarctica because he believed there was some hole down there or sumthin that led to subterranean civilization. I dunno if that theory is true but i've seen this on a couple of sites who believe hitler was more than just a human dictator of Germany. Kinda freaks me out what he could have done during world war II.

Originally posted by SE7EN

if the US had not come in and defeated them

Dont get me wrong but the US alone did not just walk in and defeat Germany don't forget British and Russians as well thank you. Just that bit upset me a bit thats all.

And you basically summed up what I had stated in the post just above yours.

I guess the idea we're both trying to get across here is that Americans are so driven by these delusions that they're the great liberators of the world and that their joining of WW2 was the single decisive factor that thrusted the Allies toward victory. Yet, they fail to realize that America was NOT recognized as a superpower until the atomic bomb was dropped.

Heck, Russia gave more lives and drove through the Reich's territory much faster than the Anglo-American forces. Field Marshals Zhukov and Koniev were even waiting to charge at Berlin while the Anglo-Americans were still weeks away from even considering that.

Originally posted by Blackout


*cough* Do you really think it was solely the US that defeated them? Do you think the US alone could have defeated them? What about the Brits and Russians? The Russians had better tech and even hit Berlin first. The US was not as powerful as Germany. The US helped, yes, but you need to give credit to others... Heck, even the Canadians contributed.

Over a million of canadians did! Something to be said of a country as small as ours. Of course when it get down to it Canadians are very formidible combatants. True grit one might say