Would the world be a safer place if Hitler had won the war?

[Meat Pie]

You seem to want to duplicate our PM's in the forum which is fine.

You stated people where misguided in this debate based on the content of the first post.... I said the debate had moved on from the first post.

I neither said nor insinuated that you where a kill joy, I just disagreed with you. I have no issue with the levels of my professionalism in this topic unless you have the belief the team are not allowed to disagree with people.

As I have said at least 5 times now in various locations if you have issue with any of this speak to Craig.

Quite. I don't like doing stuff behind closed doors where anyone can keep things undercover.

The intention of your post was clearly made in line with other posts made that have been pointedly unwelcoming to the expressing of my opinion over this evening.

You absolutely implied that I were a kill-joy as your post was not far from explicitly telling me to stop pursuing the discussion so that everyone else could have their fun.

If I'm honest, I just feel a bit devastated right now because I felt that I had in some ways made progress with garnering respect between myself and the other members of this forum. It seems not.

 

[Scott]

MP, just because people disagree with your opinions on the topic, doesn't mean they have any less respect for you. I can't speak for everyone else but I'm fairly sure people on here respect you as you often give very interesting discussions and debates

 

[Dave]

I don't know how many more ways I can say that me disagreeing with you does not imply I think your a kill joy nor intend to stop you posting. If you then disagree with my disagreement then you reply with your points of disagreement and a debate ensues (if slightly off topic)

You are a decent debater and a popular member, but people will disagree with you sometimes and it doesn't diminish those above facts. In my time here people have disagreed with me, at times I have been categorically proved wrong. That doesn't make me any less confident on these forums, and it shouldn't for you either.

Dramatically off topic now, Craig's going to have to tell me off or that!

 

[Martin]

What Brightside said.

It's just that in this topic we think you're being a bit silly.

 

[BarryZola]

Here's something to ponder, or not.

I'd guess that there were many thousands of kids in the Hitler Youth who believed fully in the ideologies of the Third Reich, as well as many other kids who believed but weren't even in the Hitler Youth. Let's say that some of these kids were 13 in 1945. That would make them 80 today if I am correct and possibly with some of the same beliefs. Their children it could be argued could be around 55 years of age for example and could have latched on to the beliefs of their parents. Without mentioning their kids as well, how many people could be walking the streets of Germany today who are still sympathetic to Nazi ideology?

I know a lot of them will have realised the error of their ways but you never know. Watch out for Merkel!!

Just something to consider.


Edit - Forgot to add the 13 on lol, but same point. I've now amended it.

 

[Poisson]

Time to add to this debate with my own ideas.

I believe that the Nazis were close enough to destroying the RAF when the blitzed the airfields in the south to say that if they continued, Britain would have fallen.

I then believe that a long, bloody war would have erupted between the Russians and the Third Reich. The Nazis would have won, just and a shaky truce would be signed with the Americans. The life for people after this would have been safer compared to during wartime but still not particularly safe.

After several years under the Iron Fist, I believe the people would have risen and been bloodily beaten by the regime. The Americans would have then broken the truce and fought to a draw and a treaty with the Third Reich. I then believe with help from China, a popular uprising would have destroyed the weakened regime and turned Europe into several communist states.

The US (Which would have conquered the South American continent) would then attack Communist Europe in a war of tension due to both sides having nukes. Up to the present day, the threat of nukes would be with us and everything based on shaky treaties at best.

So would life have been safer? I think NO but there are reasons to show why it might have been. This is just one theory so please don't attack me for it. I abhor the thought of that terrorist winning WWII even if he hadn't have killed my family members like he did.

 

[Sam]

The word 'safer' kind of implies 'better'. We'd all like to live in a safer world right? So I pretty much read the topic title as 'Would the world be a better place (particularly from a security point of view) if Hitler had won the war?'

As stupid as that question is to even ask, I guess it's OK. The reason why I think the topic should have been locked straight away is that BigT then went on the imply that the world might be a safer place if Hitler had succeeded at killing all the Jews, and thus eliminating all the problems that Israel has caused. Just the implication of that is monumentally horrible, offensive and sickening.

Personally I think it would because most of the troubles at the moment centre on Israel and thier supposed occupation of Arab land

In the context of the topic title and the preceding part of the post, that quote clearly implies what I have said above (that the "troubles" that "centre on Israel" wouldn't exist if Hitler's Holocaust had been completed).

 

[RustyRider]

I come back from a weekend away to see TST descend into a YouTube comment spamfest!

To put a slightly merrier note on this topic...if we did lose WW2 there wouldn't be any X-factor, the only way is Essex, made in Chelsea type shows!! Every cloud and all that .

 

[Jem8472]

Having actually visited Auscwitz and Birkenau and seen the size and the industrial nature of how they were killing people. I think if they had won the war they would have continued killing people in concentration camps until they had nearly got rid of anyone they disliked. Don't forget its not just the Jewish the Nazis had it in for. They wanted to remove lots of different "sub races" as they saw it.

So the world would be very very different from today. I can't imagine it TBH. But I am sure there would have been a lot of guerilla warfare. There was a group of about 6,000 'scallywags' ready to wage guerilla warfare on the Germans if they had of invaded Britain.

If they had managed to invent the atom bomb then I believe they would have then threatened the USA with it (if they had remained out of the war and not developed one) and they might have done a lot of damage to the world lobbing a few nukes about.

BarryZola you mentioned about the descendants of the Nazis, there was a documentary on a while about about that subject, it was about the children and grandchildren of Hitler's henchmen. It was very good and it showed that there are some of them out there that believe in the Nazis and still cling to their ways. But there is also the children (now adults!) that are working hard to educate people about what happened and tell them about the crimes that were committed to hopefully stop it happening again.
I cannot remember what it was called. Something like:
Hitlers children. Children of Hitler's henchmen.


Anyway bed time.

 

[BigT]

The word 'safer' kind of implies 'better'. We'd all like to live in a safer world right? So I pretty much read the topic title as 'Would the world be a better place (particularly from a security point of view) if Hitler had won the war?'

As stupid as that question is to even ask, I guess it's OK. The reason why I think the topic should have been locked straight away is that BigT then went on the imply that the world might be a safer place if Hitler had succeeded at killing all the Jews, and thus eliminating all the problems that Israel has caused. Just the implication of that is monumentally horrible, offensive and sickening.

Personally I think it would because most of the troubles at the moment centre on Israel and thier supposed occupation of Arab land

In the context of the topic title and the preceding part of the post, that quote clearly implies what I have said above (that the "troubles" that "centre on Israel" wouldn't exist if Hitler's Holocaust had been completed).

Your jumping to a lot of assumptions there Sam of which none are correct, I think your micro anilizing the words a little too much there to get to your own conclusion.
Safer meens safer nothing else and you seem to be the only one jumping on that to call me which I think at the start I made it clear that I do not agree with Hitlers warped ideas.

I think it's a genuine question to get people to debate alternitive endings that could have happened, yes its made up to a certain degree, but we know enough about nazi ideals to make some educated guesses about what may have happened.
I quite like talking about history and alternitives that my have happened if things had turned out different as I think it opens the mind to what actually happened.
I can see that's not everyone's cup of tea and that's up to you but don't try and turn me into something I'm not please.

 

[Dogmaniac]

I come back from a weekend away to see TST descend into a YouTube comment spamfest!

To put a slightly merrier note on this topic...if we did lose WW2 there wouldn't be any X-factor, the only way is Essex, made in Chelsea type shows!! Every cloud and all that .

Thank you for having the right idea.
yay no more X factor!

 

[DiogoJ42]

This is a joint post by myself and Kelpie.

OK, myself and Kelpie have been brainstorming possible ways the second world war could have played out, if you take Hitler winning the war in Europe as the end result. To make things easier to visualise, we have been using a Risk board. So I now present to you a light hearted take on how things might have played out in the latter years of the war:

Obviously this is very simplified, as there are only six colours of pieces in Risk, and the territories are not exact countries. Colours represent the following armies:
Green: Great Britain and Her Empire / Commonwealth.
Black: Germany / The Third Reich and Italy
Blue: The United States of America (and Brazil who fought in conjunction)
Red: The USSR
Gold: Empire of Japan
Silver: Neutral / other


The world as it was in 1942.

Germany defeats Great Britain and takes the remainder of western Europe. This is the turning point where things diverge from reality and enter the realm of speculation. But speculation based on what we do know about the different countries goals and alliances.

With Britain occupied the Government and military command structure is lost, enabling Germany to take out British troops in Egypt and subsequently begin to move through the middle east.

USA starts island hopping the Pacific. It seems logical that the Americans would continue to take revenge on the Japanese for Pearl Harbour. Historically, of course the USA was neutral in the war until they were attacked by the Japanese and had to be convinced by the Allies to prioritise fighting the German advancement. With their only Allied base of operation (Britain) now occupied by the Germans, it's reasonable to assume they would have retreated out of Europe and focussed all their efforts on the Pacific.

Germany removes remaining British forces in Africa. The last of British forces still fighting are defeated and the Germans take control of the Suez canal, Iran and Iraq and their resources and now have another way into the Soviet Union.

Germany takes out US military bases in Greenland and advances towards the USA. More as a buffer zone than as a serious invasion plan, as one of Hitlers main goals was to unite western Europe against Communism and likely had little interest in the USA itself. Meanwhile, the USA advances towards Japan.

1945: USA drops atom bombs on Japan, and they surrender. With the fall of Japan, the Soviet Union and China takes back areas of Japanese control in China/Mongolia previously handed over by treaty.

Throughout all this we have assumed that Russia is primarily concerned with self preservation and only taking back what Germany had taken from them. It seems likely that they would not attack the German Empire without backing from the allies.

By now, all sides would need to pause and regroup. To all intents and purposes, the war would be over. Germany needs to consolidate it's new empire, and crush any remaining resistance forces. Without the allies to supply them, the resistance movement would not last long.
It seems likely that Germany would install local sympathisers as leaders, such as Oswald Mosely in Britain.

This is as far as we have taken our "simulation" for now. From here on things get very speculative. The USA and Germany would probably declare a truce.
This would lead to a short period of shakey "peace" such as that between the first and second world wars.

It is possible that maybe... just maybe... Germany and the USA might eventually unite against "the Communist threat". However, who could honestly say how that would play out? To try and map WWIII out on a Risk board, with nuclear weapons involved on all three sides, would probably end up like the scene in Blackadder Goes Forth, with Field Marshal Haig using a dustpan and brush to wipe the board clean!

What would happen to the remainder of the Commonwealth? Would the Royal family have escaped to somewhere like Canada? Would there have been any attempt to retake the British Isles? We have left all this out, as it is impossible to say.

 

[TheMan]

That is all.

;D

(Post of the year, has to be).

 

[Poisson]

I have to admit if either my (Communist Europe at war with US plan) or Diogo and Kelpie's (German,Western Europe vs Eastern bloc vs US) were true, I would think we would be in a VERY unsafe position atm....

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

 

[GaryH]

I've sat quietly and read through all this. Glad the bickering has now stopped. Unfortunately it seems some people just cant chill out sometimes! Hitler wouldnt have stood for it thats for sure!

Having actually visited Auscwitz and Birkenau and seen the size and the industrial nature of how they were killing people. I think if they had won the war they would have continued killing people in concentration camps until they had nearly got rid of anyone they disliked. Don't forget its not just the Jewish the Nazis had it in for. They wanted to remove lots of different "sub races" as they saw it.

I agree. I visited these camps and I would urge other to. They (particularly Birkenau) are the most strange places I have visited. The sheer scale of Birkenau has to be experienced to be believed. In addition, I would recommend people read the book "the man who broke into Auscwitz" as it is really fascinating.

So if Mr Hitler (who was actually a very clever man) won ze var (John Cleese impression there) where would we be now? Well, dead probably. Unless you have blonde hair, blue eyes and are of pure Arian race. Would it be safer? Hmmm, argueably it could be, we wouldnt have terrorism like we currently have (after all, everyone would be German!) and i'm sure the SS would be very good at keeping law and order on the streets.

Would it be better? Erm, no. We live in a very varied cultural world, which adds interest and makes it enjoable visiting other countries to experience their cultures. While I do have issue with some people living in the UK and would love to lock them in a gas chamber (i.e. those who want to impose their beliefs upon us by means of terrorism), I do enjoy living in a country of different nationalities. Given that probably most of Europe would fall under the rule of Hitler, a holiday to Spain wouldnt be the fun it is now. (can imagine everyone called Helga dancing the pole in Ibiza with a nazi tattoo on their arms)

Just one more point I wanted to pick up on...... which may open the debate a bit wider....

Someone back on page 1 or 2 mentioned about no one dare start WW3. Unfortunately I think that doorway has already been opened. Syria is the powerkeg which will start it, with Iran, China and Russia on the one side, and NATO on the other. If you read past the usual news sources (eg. BBC, Sky, CNN etc) you will realise that the world is probably entering the most dangerous time since the Cold War.

 

[TheMan]

This is mainly in response to GaryH above, but brings other points of consideration of present situation, I believe everyone should know.

Whilst I am relatively certain about China attitude to democracy... though happy to be proved wrong of course, one I am less certain of, is Putin.

As Gary rightly points out, there is much beyond MSM (Main stream media) to be garnered, and I've watched Putin in many videos and speeches, including to the UN. He absolutely not backwards in putting his points forward, and I found myself agreeing with the majority of what he said.

Did he mean it? I'm not so sure, however I seem to recall declassified documents detailing the events leading up to the Cold War, and during, that suggested Russia had far more to do with it NOT resulting in disaster.

He speaks a lot about peace, and co-operation for stability, and many more things which made a great deal of sense! It could well be, it's just a front, but he spoke far more sense that many of the more quoted leaders shall we say.

He was also quite clear he did not like USA's gung-ho attitude - but as developing economies, it seems to be China and Russia do actually want to avoid war!

USA seems to thrive on it. And when you have it as the global centre of the military industrial complex, as pointed out by Eisenhower on his leaving address in 1960 (I believe) - here is an entire segment everyone in the "free world" should read:

Take heed folks.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

(That is some serious spending right there? Imagine what that is today!)

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

(A mere 15 years after the end of WWII!)

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, Military Industrial Complex Speech

I cannot find exacting figures, but it is I believe Billions, possibly in the Trillions now, of "Black Budget" defense spending in the USA. AFAIK it was even debated in Congress.

I worked in Stockbroking for a while, something I enjoyed back in the day but decided to leave the industry - there was one phrase that kept being repeated as there were talks of wars/invasions happening.

"There is nothing like a war, to stimulate the economy".

So, we have Putin's speeches asking for calm and peaceful resolutions, never backing military intervention - or we have the USA's leaders attitudes of gung-ho invade everyone, the fact that war stimulates economies, and over 50 years ago President Eisenhower (they always maintain their title incidentally I believe) warning how the Military Industrial Complex is potentially already out of control.

You may find it interesting to realise, that is was a mere 15 years after the capture of multiple highly talented Nazi scientists, taken into the bosoms of the US Military Industrial Complex....

As I keep saying, we "won" the war, but their influence never completely disappeared from extremely high level politics or indeed, science and warfare.

 

[Kelpie]

Well as the Ferengi put it in their Rules of Aquisition:
34: War is good for business
35: Peace is good for business

While we know that the USA were developing the atom bomb anyway, and it's right to state they would have used it against the Japanese regardless of how the rest of the war elsewhere was going, if the Nazi reigime had taken all of Europe and the war panned out as per our Risk simulation there would have been no Operation Paperclip. That would put a very different slant on how US military technology might have developed.

 

[Joseph]

What the actual?.....
No Just no.

 

[GaryH]

TheMan - excellent post and I totally agree, if its anyone I am afraid of at the moment its Putin. I agree that Russia had a huge deal with preventing disaster in the Cold War, but the West have now pushed Russia into this current situation where Russia is no longer prepared to sit back and again let the west install a puppet leader into another country, and the only Middle Eastern country where Russia has a naval base.

This current situation is EXTREMELY dangerous. Putin isn't going to stand by and let Russia get walked over this time, and China is also getting sick and tired of the West on its crusade to install leaders it feels fit in other countries. Although China's economy is dependent on the West and while I feel that China would side with Russia in WW3, they may not see it through in terms of attacking the West.

As much as I hate to see people killed, Russia on this occasion is absolutely 110% right that we HAVE to stay out of Syria and let the Syrian people determine their own fate. Russia and Iran are also supplying arms to Syria, while Iran is growing stronger in terms of support from other Middle Eastern countries in the face of threats from Israel (which is a right pain in the "a" in the region and see's it fit to break every UN treaty going).

The risks are these. NATO is currently installing Patriot missiles on the border of Syria. These batteries will be used to eventually enforce a no fly zone by the West. This will have huge implications and will anger Russia no end. Assad lets remember has threatened to use chemical weapons if another country invades and the US said this would signal their intervention. Turkey is already massing troops on the border. Israel is gearing up to attack Iran. Its a box of explosives with a fuse waiting to be lit.

Then there is the European recession. Before both world wars there was a recession, and what better way to strengthen the economy but to have a war.

We are currently at very dangerous times. WW3 wont have any winners, and while I doubt that there would be a full Nuclear launch on our countries, I do believe that Chemical weapons will be used on a large scale, and smaller scale Nuclear attacks will take place in key European cities. The loss of life will be huge, and the West isn't in a very good position (especially the UK) to fight another world war right now. Especially against Russia.

For once, I actually hope Russia force the Western powers to keep out of Syria, and as such, help prevent another massive global war.

 

[Harv]

Sorry to bump, but did this all really happen?