Would it have been feasible for Germany to just.. stop? -1 reply

Please wait...

DerangedDingo

FH'in on 512MB of RAM since 05

50 XP

25th March 2008

0 Uploads

131 Posts

0 Threads

#1 11 years ago

EDIT: I flubbed and posted this in Mapping instead of Off-Topic... Big Oops. Sorry. Can I move this or can only mods?

EDIT: Hehe. Apparently I can't delete it, even if I started the thread. That or I'm having a hard time finding the button. Hilarious!

Oh well. Here's the original post again:

I began wondering this a couple years ago when I was a little youngster, drifting amid a sea of knowledge relating to WWII. Then I ate the knowledge, and yet this question still bugs me!

Anyway, after the early conquests of Poland, France, and Denmark, and of course the annexations of neighboring countries, and the alliances with Hungary and Romania, would it have been possible for Hitler to... kind of... declare internationally that he didn't mean to, his finger slipped, and he'd stop conquering neighboring countries in the name of a better Germany?

I mean, permitted he stopped killing/enslaving jews and gypsies, puppet governments in the newly conquered land weren't very evil, and the SS didn't let any of their fingers slip whilst holding firearms pointed at civilians, would Winston Churchill and Roosevelt have done the unthinkable and said, also internationally, "Whatever... you've got the tanks" and started drafting and funding weapon development programs before seriously considering declaring war on/invading the newly formed "German Empire"?

The only threat I see to this scenario would be Stalin, who at that time was watching his borders very carefully. But then again, he'd probably have done something stupid like declare war on Germany and invade Poland's Eastern borders with no proper leadership, with poorly trained and equipped soldiers, leading to a slaughter, and a much larger chance of a German Russia... which was Hitler's main goal IIRC. He hated them. A lot. Bunches and Bunches. Srsly.

And any standoff years between actual fighting on "German"/European territory would have yielded technology that the 'Allies' would need EVEN MORE time to catch up to, given the fact that the German scientists of the time were brilliant, had fantastic ideas, were already ahead of their time, and would have had a larger budget due to the lack of fighting/conquering the world.

Discuss please.




Lobo

All your base are belong to FH

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

6,883 Posts

0 Threads

#2 11 years ago

No, III Reich was doomed once the firs nazi soldier put a foot on Poland.

God, Allah, and the no-God of the soviets decided its End.




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#3 11 years ago

Hang on, what role did Allah play?

And he could have stopped with Czechoslovakia, I mean, Germany was big enough after that. But after the War began, maybe if he hadn't attacked the USSR and the Soviets didn't attack him instead, could Hitler have stalemated the war with France, Belgium and Poland?




Archimonde0_0

In Vino Veritas

50 XP

28th August 2006

0 Uploads

1,231 Posts

0 Threads

#4 11 years ago

Although his beliefs, his racism, and his hatred are famous. I will say this: Even in the most hated of people there is something to envy, I envy his ambition. How many of us on these forums have this type of ambition, where we can act on what we believe so openly? Hitler believed enough in his cause to provoke a World War, and that is something to be envied. Even if it was for the wrong reasons. As far as the decision to attack Russia, Again, an ambitious move. One thing I don't understand, is there was a point where he was in a very good position to make a move on Moscow, but instead decided to move his forces to Stalingrad. I think that was a stupid Idea. Even if it were truly for the oil, (which i dont think it was). I believe it was because the city bore the name of Stalin himself, and he didn't like the city.




Lobo

All your base are belong to FH

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

6,883 Posts

0 Threads

#5 11 years ago

No thanks, I will envy Louis Pasteur, mind you.

He was not in good position to take Moscow, General Winter and the brave russion soldiers stopped him, nazis retreated with huge casualties, and next year he, like the absurd fool he was, attacked Stalingrad, due two reasons:

1) one stupid, yeah, the name of the blessed city 2) and other wise, the control of Caucasian oil had been a strategic disaster for free world




Cadyshack

Hey, you scratched my anchor!!

50 XP

4th July 2006

0 Uploads

759 Posts

0 Threads

#6 11 years ago

Even if Germany attempted to take Moscow after failing the first time, it wouldn't have been the worst case scenario for the USSR. It would've if they took it the first time, as a ton of production facilities and communication hubs were there. Afterwards, most were moved east. Hitler probably would have been better off focusing on an existing front than openning a new one. The US wasn't in the action (although if Britain was invaded they might spring), and the massive waste of resources from 1941-1942 Russia was used for a domination of North Africa, or a Operation Sealion, then things might have gone better. Also, pin a ton of blame on the Luftwaffe. Georing was an idiot. Switching up from bombing aircraft factories, airfields, and radar sites lost Germany the Battle of Britain. If they won, the Royal Navy was as good as sunk, giving you Sealion, and seriously messing up British resistance across the world. Now maybe mop up in NA, make sure you can take on the US in Europe, and go ahead and barrel into Russia on a better, less winter related timeline. Hopefully Stalin has stayed gullible enough to believe in the Non-Agression Pact up to the invasion time, and results would probably be better than the origional. But that's all hypothetical.




Lt. Rothwell

Classic.

50 XP

10th June 2005

0 Uploads

771 Posts

0 Threads

#7 11 years ago

DerangedDingo;4324820EDIT: I flubbed and posted this in Mapping instead of Off-Topic... Big Oops. Sorry. Can I move this or can only mods?

EDIT: Hehe. Apparently I can't delete it, even if I started the thread. That or I'm having a hard time finding the button. Hilarious!

Oh well. Here's the original post again:

I began wondering this a couple years ago when I was a little youngster, drifting amid a sea of knowledge relating to WWII. Then I ate the knowledge, and yet this question still bugs me!

Anyway, after the early conquests of Poland, France, and Denmark, and of course the annexations of neighboring countries, and the alliances with Hungary and Romania, would it have been possible for Hitler to... kind of... declare internationally that he didn't mean to, his finger slipped, and he'd stop conquering neighboring countries in the name of a better Germany?

I mean, permitted he stopped killing/enslaving jews and gypsies, puppet governments in the newly conquered land weren't very evil, and the SS didn't let any of their fingers slip whilst holding firearms pointed at civilians, would Winston Churchill and Roosevelt have done the unthinkable and said, also internationally, "Whatever... you've got the tanks" and started drafting and funding weapon development programs before seriously considering declaring war on/invading the newly formed "German Empire"?

The only threat I see to this scenario would be Stalin, who at that time was watching his borders very carefully. But then again, he'd probably have done something stupid like declare war on Germany and invade Poland's Eastern borders with no proper leadership, with poorly trained and equipped soldiers, leading to a slaughter, and a much larger chance of a German Russia... which was Hitler's main goal IIRC. He hated them. A lot. Bunches and Bunches. Srsly.

And any standoff years between actual fighting on "German"/European territory would have yielded technology that the 'Allies' would need EVEN MORE time to catch up to, given the fact that the German scientists of the time were brilliant, had fantastic ideas, were already ahead of their time, and would have had a larger budget due to the lack of fighting/conquering the world.

Discuss please.

See, what you fail to take into account was that Hitler didn't just want a few border countries around Germany. He wanted the Third Reich to be a one thousand year empire, one which would span the globe. He needed a little something that he called lebenschraum or roughly translated into English: living space. That living space would be the Soviet Union. Hitler hated the slavs as well as the Jews and many other people. He wanted to create the master race and he wanted land for his empire (and resources as mentioned above). He was going to attack the USSR one way or another, he just needed them out of the picture until he could get rid of the Western Allies (who declared war on him after he invaded Poland).

Lets also remember one other thing: Hitler, despite his ambition, was insane or at least delusional. And in international relations you cant negotiate with an insane or deluded person, it just does not work.

Stalin for his part didn't like Hitler but he did not plan on invading Germany over it. Once the non-aggression pact was signed between Germany and the USSR, Stalin was content to just sit back and partake a little in the glory (by co-partitioning Poland). Most historical accounts say that Stalin was shocked when Hitler invaded the USSR, and that he refused to believe it even as the Panzers were rolling across the border.

And just how would you tell the world that "your finger slipped"? "Hey guys, oops I just blew up the French Army, don't mind me, I swear I wont do it again." Doesn't work that way. Churchill was a fighter and a hater of fascism. Once he committed British troops, that was it, they weren't going to stop until the fight was done. Hitler actually wanted Britain to come over to his side after France was conquered, supposedly he loved the British or felt they were worthy of the Reich (much like the people of Norway and the Netherlands). Churchill however made it clear that the British people would never bow to the Nazi jackboot. Thus the Battle of Britain occurred, which as we all know was a resounding victory against all odds, and helped show the world that the Nazis weren't invincible. Also, nobody knew about Hitler's 'final solution' at this point (that is the extermination of the Jewish people), and they still fought against him.

The Battle of Britain also galvanized support from the American people and Roosevelt used this to start lending direct help to the British, something he could not do before because the American people weren't ready for war. Still, even before the Battle of Britain was over, Roosevelt had been having talks with Churchill and Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King about mutual defense of North America, the fate of the Royal Navy if Britain were to fall, and of course providing material support and later on, military support, against Nazi Germany.

There are a lot of 'what if' scenarios with World War II, but the one you're proposing or trying to answer is pretty unreal. Hitler was crazy, and evil. May sound trite, but its the truth. Even if he said he wanted peace, by the time he conquered France it was way, way too late to ask for a ceasefire, but he still tried but that was more of a "what the heck, might as well try taking them peacefully before i invade them" kind of move. He could have stopped when he said he would of at Munich, but he didn't. After France, and then Russia, his fate was sealed, and thank goodness for that.




Uberhauptstormfuhrer

Dread pwns me!

50 XP

17th August 2006

0 Uploads

459 Posts

0 Threads

#8 11 years ago

If Hitler wasn't so full of hate against the Slavs(Russians), jew's and communists.

He could have been the person who united all ethnic Germans and giving back some pride after the humiliating treaty of Versailles .

But yeah like everybody already told, once he invaded Poland he cascaded in to a world war which Germany could never win.




Archimonde0_0

In Vino Veritas

50 XP

28th August 2006

0 Uploads

1,231 Posts

0 Threads

#9 11 years ago
Cadyshack;4325085Even if Germany attempted to take Moscow after failing the first time, it wouldn't have been the worst case scenario for the USSR. It would've if they took it the first time, as a ton of production facilities and communication hubs were there. Afterwards, most were moved east. Hitler probably would have been better off focusing on an existing front than openning a new one. The US wasn't in the action (although if Britain was invaded they might spring), and the massive waste of resources from 1941-1942 Russia was used for a domination of North Africa, or a Operation Sealion, then things might have gone better. Also, pin a ton of blame on the Luftwaffe. Georing was an idiot. Switching up from bombing aircraft factories, airfields, and radar sites lost Germany the Battle of Britain. If they won, the Royal Navy was as good as sunk, giving you Sealion, and seriously messing up British resistance across the world. Now maybe mop up in NA, make sure you can take on the US in Europe, and go ahead and barrel into Russia on a better, less winter related timeline. Hopefully Stalin has stayed gullible enough to believe in the Non-Agression Pact up to the invasion time, and results would probably be better than the origional. But that's all hypothetical.

A Second better planned assault would've put Hitler inside moscow where he could house alot of his divisions and supplys for the brutal Russian winter. Something Napolean fell victom to.




General_Henry

Veteran Tanker

50 XP

29th April 2006

0 Uploads

1,699 Posts

0 Threads

#10 11 years ago

bad guys always lose !