Different ending to WWII

Sep 2006
1,453
Korea (but I'm American!)
Kampfpanzer said:
Well even if you compare the eleven years of Hitler's rule and eleven years of Stalin's rule it's still higher. Heck Stalin actually signed individual death warrents every night. He even ordered his soldiers to clear minefields by marching over them. What kind of leader is that?
The kind of leader who knew how to stay in power for 30 years.
 
Sep 2006
1,453
Korea (but I'm American!)
The Phantom of Christ said:
How do you think the World would be now if Germany, Italy, and Japan won WWII?
I think the answer to this question depends on how and when they win. Do you mean win as in conquer the UK and the Soviet Union all the way up to the Urals? Do the Japanese finally conquer China?

Let's say the Germans conquer the USSR. Stalin is executed, the Communist Party is liquidated, all the jews are rounded up and everything from Europe to the Urals is in German hands. Now what? Do the Germans really want to keep Russia? Who wants to live in Russia? All the cities are destroyed because of the war, most of the country is laid waste. Does Hitler really want to put the funds into rebuilding Russia? If he really wants to enslave the whole Russian population, he's going to have to keep a hell of a lot of soldiers there for occupation duty. They would have to police a population of over 100 million people.

I think Scandinavia would be given autonomy. There wouldn't be much point in garrisoning Scandinavia and they would probably have to supply Hilter's army with a quota of soldiers for the Russian occupation.

I think France and the Low Countries would eventually be given similar status. Occupying France for too many years would cause Germany a lot of problems. The resistance would grow and the Germans would have to become more and more brutal to quell it, so it would simply fuel La resistance. Eventually the Germans would have to choose between total destruction of France and autonomy. I think France would be given autonomy under a pro-German government.
Occupying Britain would be totally out of the question. First of all I do not believe that Hitler would invade Britain unless it was totally necessary to end hostilities. If he wanted to conquer the Isles he would have to destroy them completely Medeviel style or his occupation forces would face massive resistance. As Machiavelli says, Free countries are easy to conquer but very difficult to rule over.
I've written enough for now.
 

Nick

Historum Emeritas
Jul 2006
6,111
UK
If Hitler had nuclear weapons he could threatened to nuke the conquered territories if they rebelled. Ruling through fear is very effective.
 
May 2008
85
Personally I think the holocaust would have died with Hitler. After Hitler dies the Nazi leaders would have realized that the mass execution of the other races would have taken to much time and cost to much money. They would have decided that letting them live was easier
 

Pedro

Forum Staff
Mar 2008
17,151
On a mountain top in Costa Rica. yeah...I win!!
Ich spreche Deutsch und nein Englisch.
(I speak German and no English.) Is what it probably would come down to for all of us.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2008
105
Well even if you compare the eleven years of Hitler's rule and eleven years of Stalin's rule it's still higher. Heck Stalin actually signed individual death warrents every night. He even ordered his soldiers to clear minefields by marching over them. What kind of leader is that?

Nice signature lol