MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Germany should have won WW2

Germany should have won WW2


This is an answer Mint Berry wrote to me,
__________________________________

[–] Mint Berry Crunch (395) 2 hours ago

"Germany winning World War II would have been best for the entire globe."

reply

does anyone agree?

reply

Not one bit. I wish I could travel back in time to have installed some common sense into the Kaiser so there would have never been a First World War never mind a second. Germany could have been the pre-eminent power in Europe and would be respected today if it had engaged in modern trade practices instead of embracing dying colonialism. Germany has had coal and iron and could have traded for the food it was deficient in. I can only imagine how much the German field commanders groaned in silence watching Hitler making blunder after blunder. Not railing in materials needed for the Eastern Front in favor of the Final Solution had to make the heads spin of even the most fervent Anti-Semites.

reply

agreed, many of his own regime tried to assassinate him to save Germany,

"Immediately after arresting and executing the plot leaders in Berlin, the Gestapo, the secret police force of Nazi Germany, began arresting people involved or even suspected of being involved.[2] The opportunity was also used to eliminate other Nazi critics remaining.[2] In total, an estimated 7,000 people were arrested of which approximately 4,980 were executed, some slowly strangled with piano wire on Hitler's insistence.[3] Among those executed were three field marshals, nineteen generals, twenty-six colonels, two ambassadors, seven diplomats, one minister, three secretaries of state, as well as the head of the Berlin police.[3] This is a list of people who are known by name to have been a member of the coup attempt."

In less than 2 years around 1943, he beheaded 20,000 people, mostly Jews, the man was insane, and there was no way in hell he could have ever won that war. the most incompetent leader ever.




reply

Germany actually received a lot of respect until their role in the immigration and economic crisis.

reply

Their image improved but the stain of the Holocaust was always going to be present.

reply

Seeing how Germany is one of the strongest and largest economies in the world and very succesful at doing business, it doesn't seem to be considered a very big deal, especially outside of Europe.

reply

No. What's more, the price for starting two massive wars that caused the deaths of 50-75 million people in the span of 30 years should have been nothing less than the permanent end of German state.

reply

The trouble is that sets a precedent that no government wants to see used against them which is why things like that seldom happen in modern times. Who gets to set the threshold for dissolution? Kind of like kicking an owner out of the NFL who has had many losing seasons. It might sound great at first until your team under goes a down period then those same owners are turning on you.

reply

Setting a precedent that says "repeatedly launching invasions against your neighbors and attempting to exterminate people you deem undesirable will cost you everything" is exactly the kind of precedent you want to set.

Your NFL comparison is a bit flip and ill suited to the circumstances, but if the true barometer of NFL success ($$$$$$) were applied, you would definitely see the same result. If a team did nothing but drain resources from the other owners, they would get kicked out of the league.

reply


No sane person does, since that is bat shit crazy!


😎


"He's dead."

reply

"Germany winning World War II would have been best for the entire globe."


I would never change the outcome of that war because any potential benefit for mankind overall would have come at the cost (real and moral) of the complete extermination of an innocent and benign "race" of people. I would rather the world die as a whole than to have the world benefit by murder. But that's just me..

Now, having said that, I would love to have an "alternate universe" program on my computer that would allow me change some variables that would predict with *100 percent* accuracy the changes my variables wrought.

One thing that most historians agree upon is that if Germany didn't have a meth head running the country, they could have gone much farther and eventually sued for peace, keeping most of Europe (having avoided attacking Russia). With just the U.S. and England, the war would have gone on for another 4 years at minimum with England finally settling for peace. Eventually, Germany would have attacked Russia (Hitler hated communism more than Jews) and at that point the war would have been atomic, so that's one outcome.

Too many scenarios to go over but that's the general idea.

Interesting to read what MBC would think the benefit to the entire globe would be if Germany won.

reply

Germany would have never held the continent of Europe. Another war would have occurred within ten years if Germany was successful in its ambitions initially. That war most likely would have involved nuclear weapons by both sides.

reply

not in ten years Biff, if Germany was successful in its ambitions, Enola Gay would have had something to say about that.

reply

I don't know about that. Roosevelt was never comfortable with the situation going back to the mid-1930's but there would have been plenty of politicians in Washington that would have been happy to lay the problem of Soviet style communism at the feet of the Germans. The extent of the Final Solution was only known after the Allies rolled towards the interior of Europe. Had Germany held Europe the Holocaust would have amounted to widely discussed but unconfirmed rumors. Had Hitler lived it would have created quite a problem. You won the war so what do you do about the camps? At some point Hitler would have run out of undesirables to persecute and murder. Its conceivable that the Nazi's bulldoze the camps making the Holocaust harder to verify. Hitler would have denied the existence of many people lost and chalked up the missing as lost and buried in the towns that they lived in as the war encroached in on them. I could see a bunch of years going by while this is being sorted out by politicians in London and Washington. England would have done the same thing that Germany did after Hitler took power in that they would have started to build up their military almost immediately after any treaty was signed. It would have taken a few years to accomplish this especially since they would have lost parts of their empire that were important to having raw materials. Americans would have been war weary if that outcome in 1945 was the Allies getting defeated. Voters would not have elected politicians that wanted to go right back to Europe in a rematch. So by the early 1950's we have a rebuilt British military anxious to reset the European continent back to when they were pre-eminent. At that point Washington is under pressure to take a side and would take the side of a parliamentary government over what is essentially a dictatorship. It would not be a strong alliance as the US may feel that it should be the Germans running things in Eastern Europe as a bulwark against communism. Re-establish France and the Netherlands but leave the rest to the Germans

reply

Biff whether you wrote that or read it somewhere, that whole scenario is nothing but supposition, belief, conjecture, speculation, it never happened, If Hitler had won, nobody knows what that maniac would have done,
The bomb worked in Japan, it would have definitely worked in Germany, USA had the power and they used it, if needed they would have used it again, the second part is only my assumption but the first part is fact, I think you are assuming way way way too much if that nut won the war, which was impossible in the first place, not with the power of Russia and the USA joining in the war

reply

Yes, other than my statement about Roosevelt the rest is speculation and never intended for any of it to be taken as something that actually happened. It was mentioned what would happen if Hitler prevailed and I addressed that. I don't believe that the Brits would have allowed for Germany itself to be nuked but maybe areas further to the East. The Rhine and the Elbe drain into the English Channel after all and at the closest point the continent is 60 miles from the English coast. Too close for comfort in my opinion and would be a rallying point for whatever was left in Germany. Despite all that happened the Germans were looked at as close cousins. Wayward as of late but cousins nonetheless. In a way that the English never looked at the French, Dutch, etc..

reply

They could've won the war if hitler should've listen to his generals,not postboned operations,even Stalingrad had no strategic importance.He only attack that city only because it had the name of his enemy...even the japanes could've won the war also,but there's a saying..."history is full of miss oportunities".

reply

Had Midway been a draw or a Japanese victory they may have gone on to keep a lot of what they conquered. The Japanese seemed fated to lose at Midway with bad intelligence ahead of and during the battle. Japanese recon efforts had no American carriers in the vicinity and when Nagumo strongly suspected a US carrier it took far too long to confirm it.

reply

They also didn't took the opportunity to bring reenformencents sooner then 21 august when the americans troops were left without air backup...even at the end of the war they had three subs capabible to carry plains,but they launched them too late.

reply

[–] croft_alice (1573) 4 days ago

They could've won the war if hitler should've listen to his generals,not postboned operations,even Stalingrad had no strategic importance.He only attack that city only because it had the name of his enemy...even the japanes could've won the war also,but there's a saying..."history is full of miss oportunities".
______________________________________________________________________________________

There's another saying my father taught me, "IF the dog didn't stop to shit, he would have won the race"





reply

And you copied my post only for this?...oh well "it's not a party until something gets broken"😉

reply

woulda, shoulda coulda, too many crystal balls around here and everyone knows exactly what Hitler and his Generals were thinking and what they should have done,

reply

Actually,phantom8...that caporal had an issue with commander officers...during ww2 he had a few good calls,but...could've been better for him if he had listen other opinions😉

reply

well, now we'll never know, it's hard to imagine how things would've turned out even knowing what they would have done, you've got to consider what our side would have done also, for every action, there's a reaction, I believe Rommel's mistake was writing a book on tank strategies, actually giving his plans to the enemy.

reply

Actually,phantom8 it was charles de gaulle😉

reply

I'm assuming your talking about his book???
____________________________________

"Field Marshal Erwin Rommel exerted an almost hypnotic influence not only over his own troops but also over the Allied soldiers of the Eighth Army in World War II. Even when the legend surrounding his invincibility was overturned at El Alamein, the aura surrounding Rommel himself remained unsullied. In this classic study of the art of war, Rommel analyzes the tactics that lay behind his success. First published in 1937, it quickly became a highly regarded military textbook and also brought its author to the attention of Adolph Hitler. Rommel was to subsequently advance through the ranks to the high command in World War II. Though most people immediately connect Rommel with the African campaigns of World War II, he made his initial legendary giant steps during the First World War. In this 1935 title, he recalls his greatest battles, outlines how he won them, and provides his strategies on the use of armor in the field lessons ultimately used by Patton and other Allied tank commanders to defeat him."


reply

Actually,phantom8,de gaulle was an inspiration for german commanders,especially Guderian😉

reply

but he didn't write the book that was read by Patton and Allied tank commanders that helped defeat Germany.

reply

Well,phantom8,he wrote that book in 1938.

reply

you're missing the point, Alice

reply

I'm with Lara now,so it's hard to focus...what do you mean?

reply

I'm talking about Patton, not charles de gaulle, Patton wrote his books in 1935 and 1937, before CdG, but that's not my point, which is, he wrote books outlining how he won his battles, and provides his strategies on the use of armor in the field, lessons ultimately used by Patton and other Allied tank commanders to defeat him, who knows? CdG could be guilty of plagiarism since his book came after Patton's

reply

I really don't have time to arque on this...perhaps you're right
"It's not a party until something gets broken."😉

reply

I didn't consider it an argument but rather a discussion and I'm sorry if you saw it as an argument. ;)

reply

I am the one who should apologize...I was rude with you phantom8.The thing was...I had some work to do on my farm and I didn't had the patience and the time to discuss better in this...i'm sorry if I offended you.

reply

not to worry, we will duel on another subject, lol
and you didn't offend me.

reply

Ok then,i'm.looking forward to our next "duel",phantom8,just choose your...weapon😉
"It's not a party until something gets broken."

reply

you asked for it..... Scimitars and halberds

reply

You're not playing around,aren't you,phantom8😉

reply

I wanted to suggest the Lance, but I don't have a horse, lol

reply

I also wanted to suggest tomb raider,but I don't know if you know about it,phantom8😉

reply

My favorite Atari game, used to play it for hours. in fact, it was the only game I played. I was pretty good but some of it was near impossible and frustrating

reply

You didn't try the tomb raider games,phantom8,now that's I call a challenge😉

reply

what are the tomb raider games? not the same as the ones on Atari ??

reply

My god,phantom8,you never heard about the tomb raider games!?now ,that's ....I never encounter someone who never heard about Lara...really!?

reply

I think we got a failure to communicate here (Paul Newman) I played Tomb Raider Lara Croft on, (I know I said Atari but it's play station, my brain stopped working for a minute) , all the time, it was the only game I played, so you are in a heap of trouble.

reply

Well,phantom8,me and Lara we like trouble...it's our way of life😉

reply

did you play it on play station?

reply

Well,phantom8,I stil play the remastered trilogy on ps3,also I have an xbox one😉

reply

awww man, I have to get back into that game, I really miss it, it's been 3 years since I played it

reply

Wich one,phantom8?

reply

I have tomb raider 1- 2 - 3 and I think there was a 4th one, but I don't have Xbox

reply

Well,phantom8...the tomb raider trilogy and 2013 are availble on ps3 too...if you have a computer with a decent video board you can play rise of the tomb raider😉

reply

I tried playing Tomb Raider on my comp, but I missed the controller, didn't like it, but, thanks for the info, I'm definitely going to look into it, like today lol

reply

You won't regret it,phantom8😉

reply

[deleted]

The Japanese had no chance to win that war. The only mistake Japan made was starting it. In the few months after the U.S. was caught off guard at Pearl, Japan made great advances. It took a few months for the U.S. to recover but the industrial might of the U.S. was underestimated. We started building more destroyers, air craft carriers, and airplanes of all types at a faster rate than we were losing them. When Japan lost a carrier, destroyer, or battleship, there was nothing coming to replace it. They couldn't make planes fast enough to replace those that they were losing, and seasoned fliers were even harder to replace than the planes they flew.

Whether the U.S. would have had the stomach to lose another half million G.Is to prosecute the war till the end without nukes is a matter of debate, but it's generally agreed that without a working nuclear weapon to end the war, the U.S. would indeed have put boots on the ground in Japan. Losses estimated at 500K U.S. troops minimum and upwards of 2 million Japanese troops and civilians.

reply

I have somewhat of an insider's view on the Roosevelt Administration and there was considerable fear that if the war effort was going badly into the fall of 1944 the American public might have elected people into the federal government who would have ended the war without making Japan concede all of its spoils. Yes, the US had superior industrial capacity but the Japanese had a much smaller area to defend in terms of land and could make less use of weapons such as tanks versus the powers fighting in Europe. The big thing the Japanese needed were aircraft which did not require a harbor such as a battleship or aircraft carrier would require to build. Operating range for aircraft was improving for most of the powers fighting in the war near its end. The Japanese were getting creative in terms of launching aircraft from submarines and may have been experimenting with in flight fueling which would most likely get aircraft to SE Asia without an aircraft carrier. Midway and Guam would have been nice defensive perimeters for Japan but Japan could have conceivably held SE Asia without them retaining valuable mineral and petroleum sources.

reply

I'd have to see more info on most of that but what is fact is that Japan started fighting a defensive war after the loss at Midway Island, only about 6 months after the devastating and crippling attack at Pearl. Momentum shifted quite quickly.

reply

Well,don't forget that China was fighting alone against Japan most part of the war.

reply

And fighting a defensive war is what Japan should have done from the start. No raid on Pearl Harbor or attempt to take Midway. That could have easily happened as quite a few ranking officers did not believe in Yamamoto's vision of a fatal punch to the US. They conceded to Yamamoto because they were worried Yamamoto would accept a promotion taking him away from fleet operations and saw value in Yamamoto's other visions relative to the IJN. Japan would have been much harder to take down with 6 fleet carriers in operation to help defend the Solomon Islands for example. In an alternate version of the war where PH was not attacked the battleships that would have been available to fight the Japanese would have been of minimal value other than shore bombardment.

reply

Assuming no offensive action by the Japanese would mean that Lexington and Yorktown would be around for other operations but still puts the US far from home in terms of supporting those carriers as Midway, Guam, Wake had no repair facilities for large ships.

reply

It can be pretty embarassing to go against popular opinion.

reply

But they did win WW2.

Did you know that the UK was on rations for 10 YEARS following the end of WW2, and while Germany was being built back up again from day one, the Brits had to struggle all that time to get back on their feet again? They haven't even finished paying off the debt from WW2 and it was only a few years ago they finished paying off the debt for WW1.

And now, yet again, the Germans are trying to take control of Europe and bring in another version of a slave labour economy (via immigrants).

Do we never learn?

reply

I question your statement that Germany was being built up after the war faster than what Britain was. Especially what was folded into the Eastern Block. I've read more than one account that when re-unification took place Westerners were surprised that many areas in the east look essentially untouched from what they looked like after the bombs stopped dropping in 1945. My understanding is that is was pretty tough living in West Germany the first ten years after the war. Yes, London and some military targets were extensively bombed but large parts of England went untouched.


Many European countries have extensive immigration populations with England having no-go zones for police many years ahead of what the other countries had.

reply

"And now, yet again, the Germans are trying to take control of Europe and bring in another version of a slave labour economy"

WHAT???

reply

So you actually believe they want to let in millions of immigrants into Europe out of the goodness of their hearts?

reply

there are hundreds of terrorists among those millions of immigrants.

reply

Most of the German people don't want to let them in at all. Do you ever read the news?

reply

It never mattered what the German people wanted... just what their government (and others) tell them is going to happen.

They are letting in cheap labour and that is all there is to it. They will work for cheaper, fill up houses so less accommodation needs to be provided and will not complain about falling standards of living, unlike the people who lived and worked all their lives to pay for it.

It does not matter what trouble they cause because it is all brushed off so long as people put up with it and continue to do nothing. They can literally get away with rape, murder, child abuse and robbery because that is the news I read.

They don't even call them refugees anymore, which is what the ones from war-torn areas technically are.

reply

I'm talking about West Germany and not East.

reply

Effing ridiculous

reply

what's ridiculous?

reply

That ridiculous statement

reply

Indeed,is ridiculous.

reply

keyboard said "But they did win WW2" I could be wrong, but I thought they surrendered after they got the crap kicked out of them.

reply

Tells you all you need to know about keyboard, doesn't it?

reply

No, it doesn't actually (and it is spelled keybored btw).

I am talking about a country that started two world wars, now being the biggest financial and political power in Europe. If you don't call that winning the war(s) then what is?

Europe would have been screwed without the UK (and towards the end of the war, the USA) because they chose to fight the Germans and not give in. It cost them dearly to do this (£21 billion) and as I pointed out, the people continued on rations for another 10 years, while Germany was built back up again. It payed off the final debt to the USA & Canada in 2006.

So again, I ask, do you think they are letting all these people in out of the goodness of their hearts?

reply

And again, you were answered. The same influx is happening a a number of European countries. Happening here as well for the same reasons. in Europe, however, with small populations, it's only going to happen for so long until the people push back; and they will indeed push back. And sorry, but saying Germany won WW2 is still an idiotic statement no matter how you try to spin it. But you believe what you want.

reply

It's a matter of perspective....

Allowing a country that twice tried to rule Europe and make a slave labour workforce, to rule Europe and make a slave labour workforce is... history repeating itself.

reply

It is indeed a matter of perspective, and yours is skewed. Not just Germany in Europe. But you obviously need to believe that for whatever reason

reply

There is very little I actually 'believe' because I've been around long enough to to know better.

What exactly is skewed in what I said?

Did I get it wrong about Germany being the strongest power in Europe?
Did I get it wrong about the reason they want to bring immigrants to Europe?
Are those people going to take the jobs, houses and benefits of the native born people who paid for it all? Who does that benefit? Not the citizens that is for sure.

For the record, as you obviously don't know me (yet you judge me already from a few words)...
I would happily let any refugee from a war torn country in, but there is a huge difference between a refugee and an economic migrant, of which the majority of these people (mostly male) entering Europe currently are.

If you haven't noticed, the world's economy has been shit for a long time now and it makes no economic sense for a country's population to allow economic migrants in when there is not enough housing or employment for it's population UNLESS you are an employer wanting to cut costs and a Government wanting to get out of social and structural responsibilities.

It is economically more viable to send aid to people in their own countries than it is to bring them into your own, especially when you don't have the infrastructure to feed, house and employ them all at the expense of your own population, but that is what is exactly what is happening because it is better for the few at the top to make money than that the majority of the country have the rights to the things they were brought up paying for.

What are your beliefs on the recent migrant influx by the way?

reply

You got it wrong, IMO, about Germany wanting "slave labor" and being the only country in Europe to do this. Yes, it's all about corporate greed, exactly the same as it is here. The difference is, as I said, Europe will experience a push-back long before anything similar happens here, largely because it doesn't send as many jobs overseas as the US.

reply

I never said they were the only country who wanted this. I said they are in charge of Europe again and going by past history, that can only be a bad thing for everybody else.

reply

they are in charge of Europe again, ok, and going by past history, that can only be a bad thing for everybody else. If I remember correctly, it took thousands of GIs hundreds of planes, tanks and battleships to win the war, but not today, it takes 1 man to push a couple of buttons to send a few ICBMs that are already aimed at Germany and it's good night Grace. that history will never repeat again, not that we would send them but threaten to send them, no country wants the wrath of the USA in this day and age, not with the power we have, which is much more than most people know.

reply

[deleted]

Europe would have been screwed in the sense that it was the only available land platform to launch a counter invasion of the continent for the US. The UK had since 1933 to prepare for what was coming with Hitler and when it was man against man (UK against Germany) then I guess the better man (UK) did not win even with lend/lease factored in. Somebody who lived in the UK during that time could tell me different but my understanding was that the rationing was more inconvenient than bringing on starvation.

At what point do you say the past is the past and if you keep opening old wounds things will never heal. Should the UK pay reparations to the native peoples of the far East and Africa that they exploited for next to no compensation prior to 1945? Should they be involved financially for lands that their North American colonies took from the Native Americans? It is obvious that you are from the UK and have a family that is bitter over the events of the last 100 years. I see the same thing here in the Eastern US with families who came over to North America well before the American Revolution. That if it were up to them anybody who did not come over from England (they don't recognize the UK in terms of recognizing the Irish and the Scots) needs to get on a boat or plane and go back to where their family originated from. Yes, today in 2017!!! Today we all have to live with each other whether you be English, German, French, Italian, Russian, African, Asian, or whatever. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle for what has happened.

reply

It was a little more complicated than just trying to avoid starvation. It was what was taken from the UK people to keep the war effort going. They gave everything they had and more including literally taking the gates off your house and any other metal you owned to make weaponry and bullets (although those in the know beforehand managed to remove and hide theirs).

Yes I am from the UK so mainly speak from that perspective, but if you think I am a bitter person or my family then you are so wrong. i am just pointing out history and also where the future will lead, which to me is a long and complicated story, which (short version) boils down to this...

You cannot keep exporting jobs or perpetually employing the cheapest workers because eventually you will end up with a system where a very, very small amount of people hold incredible wealth and power, are propped up by those who support this system (from greed or fear), while the majority of the population become economic slaves.

Those who actually know me know that I am in no way, shape or form a racist person nor a selfish one either. I can just differentiate, as I said earlier, the difference between a genuine refugee and an economic migrant. I just happen to think that many Governments now are selling out their own citizens for a quick and cheap fix, which will harm the main population of the countries in the long run.

If economies were strong and jobs and affordable housing were available for everybody then it wouldn't be a problem to bring cheaper workers in, but that time isn't now when so many native citizens are suffering.

It is better (financially) to help the people in their own countries by providing whatever aid they need than it is to bring them into your own and take the resources. That is just simple fact. If the money is not squandered by the 'charities' used to distribute it or the governments that are supposed to manage it.

Have to go now-this is a much longer conversation for later

reply

No argument here as far as government looking at for its citizens when it comes to fair wages and other labor practices. Most politicians want immigrant labor to establish voting blocks or to depress wages on behalf of big corporate benefactors.

Americans made sacrifices for WWII as well. Rubber for tires, copper for automotive electrical systems, and petroleum were rationed creating hardships. Limitation orders were made for automobiles, trucks, and farm tractors in terms of units produced. Farmers were expected to make do with what they had and production took a few years after the war to finally catch up with demand.

reply

Who,the japanese?

reply

There is actually a movie on this called Fatherland.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109779/?ref_=ttgf_gf_tt

reply

Yeah, but it takes a lot of historic liberties, one being that Germany managed to completely hide the Holocaust from the rest of the world for 20+ years

reply

True, but any movie that presents a "What if..." scenario would have to do a lot of speculation to tell the story.

reply

Exactly, which is why it's a good movie, but pure fiction

reply

Germany did win WW2. America took all their tech and scientists and policies and slowly implemented them over the decades. We are the 3rd Reich, just with better packaging.

reply

They also helped, with the Marshall Plan, to build Germany up again so it didn't look bad to the Russians in the Cold War, while as you point out, taking all their best tech.

reply

With all the scientists and tech the americans took from Germany after the war,Russia still got the same technology and in some places improve it.

reply

Russia got conned into the space race though and that was their downfall.

reply

I won't be so sure about that😉

reply