If Hitler would have won WW2 how different would things be? Better??

history buff and bored b4 WC wrote:

Would there have been more order? Less crime? People taken care of better?

Probably not, but it's a moot point. Hitler had no chance to win WW2, fortunately.

Well, if Hitler had won WW2 than he wouldn't have been "Hitler" would he? Hitler had no chance of surviving WW2 when he embarked on his scorched earth war towards the Soviet Union.

The only chance he had of winning that war was by winning over the minds of the East European people. To a large extent he did that with France and Britain.

Problem was, he was Hitler. He motivated everyone in Eastern Europe and Russia to fight to the death against him.

I think you have enough examples in history where the "wrong" side won as far where two groups disagree and force is used just to get your way and the wrong guy with more guns win. It shouldn't be a surprise that it would be an increase in power and prestige for the descendants of whoever that wins. People go wild with their imaginations as if the world would turn into some dystopian nightmare. I would think it just changes seats at a table, who gets the better ones.

ryan foreman wrote:

Well, if Hitler had won WW2 than he wouldn't have been "Hitler" would he? Hitler had no chance of surviving WW2 when he embarked on his scorched earth war towards the Soviet Union.

This is probably correct. If he had stopped at Poland, Slovakia, Hungary to the east, and more or less just defended against Britain he would have had most of Europe in his pocket or as allies (Italy, Spain). The empire might not have lasted, but then again it may have stayed intact for decades, similar to the Eastern Bloc 1945-90.

Clearly you are not a very bright "history buff".

In a sense, he did win, because ultimately the altruism/collectivism/mysticism axis that was the base of Hitler's philosophy prevailed over reason and destroyed the world anyway. In a few decades, we will have a dictatorship in the U.S.

Josh Hamilton's Addiction wrote:

Probably not, but it's a moot point. Hitler had no chance to win WW2, fortunately.

Completely false. Hitler could have won WWII quite easily, but for a few blunders. First, he never should have invaded the Soviet Union. Second, he never should have let the British Expeditionary Force escape at Dunkirk. Change either of those and the war ends with Hitler as a victor.

The world wouldn't be much different. If Hitler had won, he wouldn't have held power for long.

iflyboats wrote:

In a sense, he did win, because ultimately the altruism/collectivism/mysticism axis that was the base of Hitler's philosophy prevailed over reason and destroyed the world anyway. In a few decades, we will have a dictatorship in the U.S.

Does your boss at the CATO Institute know you're trolling LetsRun on company time?

ryan foreman wrote:

The only chance he had of winning that war was by winning over the minds of the East European people. To a large extent he did that with France and Britain.

Never mind France, but he did what with Britain? Win the hearts and minds of the people?

Yes, there were British Fascists, but (fortunately), the vast majority of the British did not exactly fall for Hitler's "charms", to put it very mildly.

To the OP: Asking not to "play the genocide card" is a little much, don't you think? Apart from being a fascist, racist, homophobic and a mass murderer, Hitler was probably quite alright...

I've thought about this before...since I am a white American from pure German descent it makes me wonder if it would be "better" for me in particular but certainly it would not be "better" in a society for anyone who is not free

Josh Hamilton's Addiction wrote:

history buff and bored b4 WC wrote:

Would there have been more order? Less crime? People taken care of better?

Probably not, but it's a moot point. Hitler had no chance to win WW2, fortunately.

It was his Japanese ‘allies’ who lost the war for Hitler.

Had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbour, the USA would never have got involved in the war going on in either the Pacific rim or in Europe.

Without USA involvement, Britain and the Soviets could not have defeated Hitler and the war would have ground to a bloody stalemate.

The interesting question is not what would have happened had Hitler won the War, but what would have happened had Britain and (a reluctant) France not given a pledge to Poland, (that they were both unable and unwilling to honour when the time came) to come to that county’s aid in the event of an attack by Hitler.

Hitler assumed both Britain and France were rational and realistic and would not declare war over an incident that neither country could influence.

Ironically, Stalin invaded Poland from the East two weeks after Hitler had from the West - but Britain and France ignored that little inconvenience.

Joe Binks wrote:

It was his Japanese ‘allies’ who lost the war for Hitler.

Had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbour, the USA would never have got involved in the war going on in either the Pacific rim or in Europe.

Without USA involvement, Britain and the Soviets could not have defeated Hitler and the war would have ground to a bloody stalemate.

The US would have entered the war even without an attack on Pearl Harbor. FDR wanted to enter the war and would have convinced the public, even without an attack on the US. The US and Great Britain are/were Anglican brothers. US pilots were flying with the RAF well before Pearl Harbor and American pilots flew with the RAF during the battle of Britain, which Germany lost, btw. Germany could not successfully invade Great Britain, even before the US entered the war. Regardless, if they had successfully invaded Great Britain, the US would have immediately declared war on Germany, Pearl Harbor or not.

Ole Timer wrote:

Josh Hamilton's Addiction wrote:

Probably not, but it's a moot point. Hitler had no chance to win WW2, fortunately.

Completely false. Hitler could have won WWII quite easily, but for a few blunders. First, he never should have invaded the Soviet Union. Second, he never should have let the British Expeditionary Force escape at Dunkirk. Change either of those and the war ends with Hitler as a victor.

The US would not have let Hitler win the war. They would've protected Great Britain no matter what. The US' wartime production during WW2 is unfathomable. There was no way Hitler was going to win WW2 because the US would protect GB and continental US was/is essentially impossible to invade. Hitler's ultimate goal was to launch an invasion of the US. There's just no way Hitler could have won WW2. The fact that he was a poor military tactician just compounds that truth.

Interestingly, you hold the belief that Hitler should never have invaded the USSR, which is a commonly held belief. Fighting a 2 front war is certainly hard, but not impossible. The US fought wars in Europe and the Pacific and ended up just fine. Hitler's poor military tactics in Russia led to defeat. He had a chance to march right into Moscow quite early in the invasion. They could've taken down Moscow and chopped off the head of the Soviet Union. Hitler instead marched on Leningrad and Kiev for oil from the Caucasus. If Hitler had taken down Moscow first, that oil would've been obtained more easily.

Don't know what history books the OP reads but those numbers are way off for Vietnam and most sources indicate that total deaths in Iraq was much much less than 1 million. In the 200,000 range.

And while Hitler made the trains run on time, life in Europe would have been pretty horrific unless you were an Aryan believer.

[quote]Darwinian runner fellow wrote:

Don't know what history books the OP reads but those numbers are way off for Vietnam and most sources indicate that total deaths in Iraq was much much less than 1 million. In the 200,000 range.

In fact, more than 1 million Iraqis died in the 1990s from the sanctions alone. Over 500,000 children.

Not to mention how many Iraqis and Iranians were killed in that bloody was in the 1980s -- a war in which the USA armed both sides to ensure massive casualties.

And, of course Gulf War I. And the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. And its aftermath -- hundreds of people still being killed every few days in Iraq.

Hence, you need to multiply the 200,000 by a factor of at least ten and probably more

Hitler could have invaded the UK and conquered it before the US entered the war. First, he let nearly 400,000 soldiers escape at Dunkirk. Those troops formed the core of the defense of the UK. Second, he started a war against the Soviet Union when it wasn't needed.

Had he captured the expeditionary force, and then invaded the UK PRIOR to the Soviet Union, he'd have taken the UK. No doubt about it.

The USA was more isolationist then, we didn't want to get involved. Roosevelt was actively sending supplies but few people wanted war. It was a different time. Even if we had wanted to get involved, the time required to mobilize and arm was years not months. We were in bad shape in '38-'39 and couldn't have done much. It wasn't until mid-'42 that we were really ready to fight.

On what evidence do you base your contention that the USA would have entered the European War Pearl Harbour or not?

FDR may well have wanted to enter the war, but there is no way he could have persuaded the majority of the American public to go along with him.

After the experience of their involvement in WW1 most Americans were isolationist and it took an attack on American soil (some say orchestrated by Roosevelt) to involve them in war against Japan.

Even then, it is acknowledged that Roosevelt would still have had difficulty persuading Americans to fight in Europe’s war had not Hitler, in one of his most idiotic decisions - done Roosevelt’s work for him and declared war on the USA is support of Japan!

As for the USA and Britain being Anglican brothers - it is well known here that America bankrupt us within a few months of the war starting with us having to liquidate all our investments in the USA and elsewhere to pay cash for every item we bought from the USA to fight Hitler and we were also aware that one of the war aims of the USA was to destroy the British Empire in favour of American business.

It’s ironic that we in Britain allied ourselves to the two powers out to destroy us - against Hitler - who considered the survival of the British Empire as essential for world stability.

Are you asking this of those who would have been spared or those who would have been destroyed?

I fail to be impressed with your moral agenda -- hypothetical or not.

Sorry about your ennui.