Do you have a cite for that? Outside of Germany, information about the Holocaust itself was sketchy at best. Members of Jewish communities had better knowledge than most, since many had relatives either in Germany or who had recently escaped the Holocaust, but most people outside of the Jewish communities dismissed their stories as being exaggerated (in reality, the Holocaust was much worse than even the rumors indicated). Sure, there was something going on, but the true scale of the Holocaust wasn’t really known until the Allies started stumbling across the concentration camps towards the very end of the war.
You also have to keep in mind that homosexuality was a crime, not just in Germany but also in most other countries, including both Britain and the United States. And, it continued to be a crime until long after the war had ended. Homosexuals were often not even considered to be victims of the Holocaust until the gay liberation movement of the 1970s.
If you have a cite that proves me wrong I would be happy to see it, but I have a lot of doubts that homosexuals being rounded up in Germany as part of the Holocaust was even a known thing outside of Germany. And I have never read anything that indicated Alan Turing was influenced by this, even in modern works that are very open about his homosexuality. After all, it’s not like Britain was a haven for gays. Homosexuality remained a crime in Britain until long after Turing’s death. Turing himself was convicted of Gross Indecency in 1952, and was forced to endure chemical castration to avoid prison. His misery after being outed as a gay man is probably what ultimately led to him taking his own life in 1954.
Lebensraum was 100% Nazi (and generally imperialist Germanic) policy, and for the Nazis it was priority one, even more than exterminating the Jews. There is no realistic scenario in which the Nazis do not try to invade the USSR, it was their core policy.
There was literally no other point to starting WW2, or WW1 for that matter. German imperialists dating back to the late Holy Roman Empire had been looking east for territorial gains.
The entire Western Front was a sideshow. In both World Wars, it was only meant to hold off the Western Allies long enough to establish a solid grip on the land to east of Germany.
Here’s a counterfactual I’ve never seen used in any alternate history; What if Libya’s oil fields had been discovered in the thirties instead of the fifties? The Axis war effort was significantly hampered by problems getting access to oil. The need to secure an oil supply drove several political decisions the Axis made. But they had a major source of oil under their control that they didn’t know existed.
Probably worth a separate thread. But I’ll say that if the Libyan oil was known to exist prior to Hitler becoming Chancellor, the Allies would have known about it too.
As such the circumstances leading up to the Germans “sitting on” a windfall would not have evolved the way it did.
I’m also skeptical but it is true that just like with the Nazi antisemitism (which was from the outset clearly more violent and dangerous than the run-of-the-mill antisemitism Jews faced anywhere in the western world, long before the Holocaust became widely know) their anti-LBGT stance was from the outset more militant than the norm, even in a world where homosexuality was almost universally a serious criminal offence. E.g the commonly meme-ified picture of Nazis burning books took place at the the Institute for Sexology, a famously progressive research institute known for its (at the times) incredibly liberal attitude towards LGBT sexuality and identity:
That said I’ve never heard any LGBT figures among the allies, like Turing, who quoted that as a reason for fighting them harder (of course, the fact homosexuality was a crime in their country too would have discouraged them from saying that in public)
Hypotheticals like this tend to start after the French surrender and before the invasion of Russia. The scenario in which the Germans force Britain out of the war seems unlikely, British foreign policy has always been motivated by a desire to prevent any nation from dominating continental Europe. Britain, particularly with the US aid that it recieved, was very capable of continuing that war for years if needed. Blockading Nazi held areas with its superior navy and fomenting resistance wherever possible. See any number of wars with Spain, or France. The scenario in which Germany does not invade the USSR is also unlikely. In addition to the genocidal expansionist policy that was the backbone of Nazi ideology, the Soviets had their own plans. It is likely that they would have attacked first, once their own preparations were completed. So a war with the Soviets was best done immediately, before they had a chance to harden their border in newly occupied Poland. Finally with regard to the US, there was nothing stopping the US from declaring war on Germany once they were attacked by Japan. They were already extensively assisting the British, who were also attacked at the same time, and I think it is reasonable to assume that the European and Asian wars would have come together regardless of what Hitler did. With regard to the OP: others have said it, but Hitler is gonna Hitler, extermination was the point. Otherwise he would have to be content being the 4th (or 3rd) largest economy in the world, and the terrible conditions Germans live in today
Naw. Once he invaded Russia it was over. He could have made a deal with GB if they had picked Halifax instead, I guess if the Nazis hadn’t bungled in the USSR so much, and had peace with the UK, maybe. Turning the Ukrainians into foes was a stupid move, for example.
True, but Halifax was willing to make a peace deal.
I’d put it this way: The only way Germany or Japan could have ‘won’ the war was if they could keep the US out of it. That should have been job #1. Had Hitler stopped in Poland and sued for peace, he might have ‘won’ if the allies agreed. Had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor and instead offered to join the Allies against Hitler in exchange for keeping some of its conquest and getting sanctions dropped, it might have ‘won’ its conflict. None of that may have been possible, but it was the only path to victory.
The sheer size and scale of the U.S. economy and military production pretty much ensured that the war was a fait accompli once the Americans were fully engaged.
For example, before the war Germany had about 3,500 tanks. During the war they produced another 46,000, for a total of about 50,000 tanks.
America produced 86,000 tanks during the war, and could have produced a lot more but they also were building huge numbers of ships and airplanes and pther waponry to fight a second front in the Pacific. In 1941 alone, the U.S. produced more ships than Japan’s entire inventory. Japan had 6 aircraft carriers. America built 17 aircraft carriers during the war, and almost 300,000 aircraft.
In terms of personnel, the U.S. lost about 253,000 soldiers in WWII. Most other combatants lost a much larger percentage of their fighting men. The US could have mobilized huge numbers if nexessary.
And with all that wartime effort, the U.S. was still the only major combatant in the war to not have a single quarter of recession, and they didn’t have their infrastructure bombed.
If the UK had fallen, perhaps Germany could have negotiated a peace of some sort if there was no other path into Europe for an invasion. But if America wanted to keep fighting, America would eventually have won even without nukes.
I’d say this is questionable. The Nazis, of course, claimed that the Soviets were preparing to attack Germany and Germany was only launching a pre-emptive attack when they invaded the Soviet Union. (The Nazis had made similar claims to justify their invasion of Poland.)
While most Nazi propaganda claims were dismissed, this one had some life after the war because the idea of the Soviets being a threat fit in with America’s cold war ideology. This belief got a big push in the eighties from Vladimir Rezun (aka Viktor Suvarov) , a Soviet military officer who defected in 1978. Rezun verified the claims that the Soviets had been planning to attack Germany and then France and Britain. But there’s evidence Rezun may have chosen to tell the British and Americans what they wanted to hear.
Hmm, interesting. I had always heard it claimed that it was understood that the USSR and Germany would go to war eventually, no matter who started it - and the division of Poland was just a prelude to that. I can’t imagine how occupying more land would solve the USSR’s problems. but they seemed to think that was the way to go.
If you look at Soviet military activity in 1941, you’ll see that they were putting a priority on building fortifications and laying minefields - which are not things you do if you’re planning on launching an offensive attack past your border.
Stalin didn’t want to fight wars because fighting wars requires a strong military. And Stalin was afraid that if the Soviet Union built up a strong military it might try to overthrow him. So he figured he could maintain peace by buying off Hitler and that would allow him to keep his military safely weak.
So is “SU” the way the kool kidz are doing it now? Damn. I’m way behind the curve—still burdened with the corny old appellation “USSR”.
More seriously–these things change. “Turkey” deciding to go by “Türkiye” caught more than a few folks off guard, I wonder if I missed the boat on “SU”?
“SU” is used by several of the BS artists learned commentators around here, but I don’t know that any professional historian or foreign policy wonk would use anything other than “USSR”.
The UK would have been in a very tough spot if the Dunkirk evacuation hadn’t worked. They probably would have sued for peace. The US and UK would have had enough trouble with the Japanese to worry about Hitler.
Hitler’s war aims were to recapture the territory controlled after the 1917 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which he thought of as a Greater Germany.
I disagree remaining in the war was the unlikely part. If any of the following things happen then Britain is out of the war by 1942/43:
Anyone but Churchill replaces Chamberlain as PM
The British army does not escape Dunkirk
The Battle of the Atlantic goes the other way (on another thread someone pointed out that “starving to death” was not actually a realistic outcome, but there is a big gap between “not starving to death” and “receiving enough supplies to carry on major war effort in different theaters”)
The US does not join the war in Europe
The North Africa campaign goes badly enough to threaten the supply routes to India (Britain always considered mainland Europe as less important as their empire)
And finally Germany carry out a successful invasion, not the most likely outcome, but also not the impossibility its considered in some circles.
The strange thing is that one of the few areas where Hitler acted reasonably was in his dealings with Britain. While there have been books and movies written about Britain under Nazi occupation, the reality is Hitler wasn’t asking for a total surrender. All he essentially wanted was for Britain to stop fighting and to recognize German control over the countries it had conquered. Beyond that, Britain could remain an independent country and keep its empire.
While nobody wanted to admit it after the war, there were probably a lot of people in 1940 who were thinking that wasn’t a terrible deal and they should take it.
I feel the critical period was 1940-1941. By 1942, the United States and the Soviet Union were both in the war against Germany and Britain could be pretty sure it was on the winning side.
Nope. Quite impossible. Germany never did have the capability to stage an amphibious invasion against any kind of resistance. They weren’t even close to having effective landing craft or supply ships.
You can end the OP with “if…” The answer will always be “No.”
I’m going to disagree. I feel that the Americans and the British became so wrapped up in the way they carried out invasions that they convinced themselves that it was not only the best way but the only way.
The historical reality is that Germany carried out successful invasions of Crete and Norway during the war, which showed it was possible to carry out a successful invasion without massive air and naval superiority. Granted, the conditions involving an invasion of Great Britain were different but I think it’s going too far to say it was impossible.
