Best Possible outcome for Germnay in WW2

Irioth

Banned
My thanks for a good and comprehensive answer. The reason I asked was to see whether you belonged to a people subjected to deportation or assimilation.

Well, my country didn't, but we had a very long string of being subject to other peoples. The tragedy was that they were corrupt, rapacious, and incompetent, and/or only took a chunk and put the rest in the hands of crooked and bumbling puppet princelings. Had any of them managed to unite of all the country under an imperial rule that ensured fair and competent administration, economic development, and basic liberties as appropriate for the age, I would call it a very good deal. Heck, the very best realistic thing that could happen to us nowadays, is if we could become a protectorate of the United States of Europe. We would get a honest and competent ruling elite and administration for a change.
 
Well, my country didn't, but we had a very long string of being subject to other peoples. The tragedy was that they were corrupt, rapacious, and incompetent, and/or only took a chunk and put the rest in the hands of crooked and bumbling puppet princelings. Had any of them managed to unite of all the country under an imperial rule that ensured fair and competent administration, economic development, and basic liberties as appropriate for the age, I would call it a very good deal. Heck, the very best realistic thing that could happen to us nowadays, is if we could become a protectorate of the United States of Europe. We would get a honest and competent ruling elite and administration for a change.

That sounds like a rather dark view of your country. Are you sure that you are not overly projecting it on other minor nationalities?

I would agree that to a point, primitive civilisations do well assimilating into superior cultures. However, speaking of Europe in the last hundred years or so, I do not think the intercultural differences have been great enough to warrant such, and certainly not worth the human costs of forced means. That, and I generally consider it a loss when cultures are consumed; nearly every culture has something positive to contribute, even the most underdeveloped ones.
 

Irioth

Banned
That sounds like a rather dark view of your country. Are you sure that you are not overly projecting it on other minor nationalities?

Maybe. But my very harsh judgment on the merits of nationalistic minorities mostly comes from reviewing cases such as the Balkans and Palestine.

However, speaking of Europe in the last hundred years or so, I do not think the intercultural differences have been great enough to warrant such, and certainly not worth the human costs of forced means.

I would deem that when natural cultural assimilation is possible, it is the best outcome. When unfortunately it is not, forced one or population transfers are a better outcome than Balkanization or ongoing strife from clashing nationalities. Population transfers in the last Century (e.g. Germany-Poland, Greece-Turkey) have managed to create lasting peace and development, even if some bad blood may linger, the clashes stand where those who cannot live together (eg. Cyprus, Bosnia, Kosovo) stubbornly cling to the same peice of land. And this is only in Europe.

That, and I generally consider it a loss when cultures are consumed; nearly every culture has something positive to contribute, even the most underdeveloped ones.

Cultures that have something really worthy to provide to mankind, never really get exitinguished, they live on as part of the gestalt that is world culture. To all means and deeds, many cultures like Ancient Greek, Egyptian, and Norse cultures are dead, as the languages and countries that birthed them are extinct. To the matter of leaving a vibrant heritage, they are very living. I'm a strong believer in the worth of Darwinism as applied to cultures, if they are something worth, they most likely thrive and succeed as long as they remain vital, if they decay, their heritage lives on in other cultures. Having something positive to contribute does not mean that any single culture should be kept forvever under ice provided with an indepedent thorn-in-the-paw national state, state-enforced language and "cultural" output which nobody on the face of earth finds any spontaneous use or interest for, and an aggressive nationalism that does its best to inflict Balkanization grief on the rest of the poor world. Homer, Edda, and Ancient Nights have trusted the vagaries of history and succeded in all the ways that matter, even if Vikings, Greek city-states, and the caliphate of Bagdhad are dust. Why not modern Czech, Polish (referred to the conditions of the 1940s of course) Basque, Irish, Franco-Canadian, Serb, or Palestinian should be subject the same standard, and should be entitled to inflict grief and strife on the rest of the world, in order to artificially thrive under wraps ?

That's why I'm very, very fond of ATLs that build strong, world-encompassing empires, and totally loathing of ones that support Balkanization. Cheers and Hurrah for blobs on the map, I say.
 
I would deem that when natural cultural assimilation is possible, it is the best outcome. When unfortunately it is not, forced one or population transfers are a better outcome than Balkanization or ongoing strife from clashing nationalities. Population transfers in the last Century (e.g. Germany-Poland, Greece-Turkey) have managed to create lasting peace and development, even if some bad blood may linger, the clashes stand where those who cannot live together (eg. Cyprus, Bosnia, Kosovo) stubbornly cling to the same peice of land. And this is only in Europe.

I would question your conclusions. The instances you cite as evidence for the inherent flaws of nationalism are all the result of attempted assimilation/cleansing campaigns that failed; one could basially trace the Balkan problems back to the formation of Yugoslavia, which the Serbs tended to treat as their personal empire whenever they got the chance. Population transfers only work when the deported side gives up or is otherwise silenced, as happened with the Heimatsvertriebene in Germany; in the Middle East, Palestinian "refugeeship" is inherited, and the great-grandchildren of the refugees still live in the same camps, deliberately kept that way to put pressure on Israel.

Many more nationalities live in peace than are at war, and conquest and oppression form the historical roots of much of the ethnic violence that does exist.
 

Irioth

Banned
I would question your conclusions. The instances you cite as evidence for the inherent flaws of nationalism are all the result of attempted assimilation/cleansing campaigns that failed

Or looking it the other way, weren't managed successfully.

one could basially trace the Balkan problems back to the formation of Yugoslavia, which the Serbs tended to treat as their personal empire whenever they got the chance.

True, not that the "musical chair" Titoist power-sharing machine worked well, either. OTOH, I was assuming empires that are efficient at their cultural assimilation tasks, like say the Romans, the Arabs, or the British.

Population transfers only work when the deported side gives up or is otherwise silenced, as happened with the Heimatsvertriebene in Germany; in the Middle East, Palestinian "refugeeship" is inherited, and the great-grandchildren of the refugees still live in the same camps, deliberately kept that way to put pressure on Israel.

Really, you don't want me fully started on that argument, as my rabid loathing for the Palestinian cause, and modern Arab/Islamist nationalism in general, knows no bounds, a chip on my shoulder the size of Godzilla (nothing personal, just sheer political antipathy), the "bomb them all and let God sort the innocent collateral damage" kind.

Anyway, trying my best to remain at least civil on the subject, let's say that the fact the ongoing Palestinian "refugeeship" sore wound is wholly artificial and manufactured, the unholy marriage of Arab autocracies and failed-state Palestinian leadership to block any possibility of assimilating those people in the Arab countries where they naturally belong culturally, in order to pull a Castro and create the big baddie Israel scapegoat for the horrendous management they have made of the Middle East, making it the second-worst economic/cultural backwater of the current world. If they had let them, just like Germans/French/Portoguese did, the refugee problem would have solved out itself long ago. Anyway, it's not like they are keeping people in those refugee camps with barb wire, they could have always emigrated into other countries, like other Muslims did. But their leaders instead persuaded them into lingering there forever, expecting a "right to return" that the Isreali will accept when Hell friezes over thrice in a row (rightfully so; it's like 30 million Muslims claimed to immigrate in Spain or Italy because Al-Andalus or Muslim Sicily got quashed by Crusaders 800 years ago) and all the loser wars and futile terrorist campaigns ought to have them realize, Israel is not going the way of the Latin Kingdoms. And they could have had a really decent Palestinian homeland (say Gaza and 80-90% of the West Bank) long long ago if they had realized compromise and not Quassam rockets and human bombs in supermarkets (which disqualify a people that actively supports them from any right, I say) are the way to it. I won't shed a tear on the lot of the Palestinians, however harsh it may be. They are the poster child for the (self-)destructive evils of nationalism. If anything, IMO, they got it too lenient, I would have kicked them all beyond the Jordan long ago, built a Really Big Wall, and sent 100 bombs back for any rocket.
 
Last edited:
I'm American. None of my Hungarian, German, French, English, Native, African, etc, culture has survived except in the generalised American form. It's a lot more fun if you do it by intermarriage than the machine guns and barbed wire techniques. Costs less that way too.
 

Irioth

Banned
I'm American. None of my Hungarian, German, French, English, Native, African, etc, culture has survived except in the generalised American form. It's a lot more fun if you do it by intermarriage than the machine guns and barbed wire techniques. Costs less that way too.

Indeed, but I would chalk a big share of the success to a really appealing popular culture, all those Hollywood movies. That's the way of the really successful empires, like the Romans and the Americans, they win over with culture (and material conforts, and tech advancements...) most of their subjects, the machine guns and barbed wire is necessary only for the stubborn forcefully resisting minority (Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, anyone ?). So it was for the Romans, they won over the majoiriy with acqueducts and good laws, the massacres were for the few diehards.

And that is where the Nazis failed, besides picking up senseless vendettas wth peaceful, industrious, loyal minorities, they gave up the soft approach before they even tried "Psst, downtrodden peasant in the Communist nightmare. Look here. Good welfare state. Good consumer goods. Organized recreation. The best science in the world. Decent administration. No purges, no abuses, no atrocities for loyal law-abiding citizens. We are conquering the world, but you too can have a share in the coming utopia. You are an Aryan, even if you don't know it yet. Just send your children to our schools, listen to our information services, and you can jump aboard".
 
Or looking it the other way, weren't managed successfully.

However you look at it, they were caused by those efforts and likely wouldn't be there if not for them, let alone in the destructive form they have taken IOTL.

True, not that the "musical chair" Titoist power-sharing machine worked well, either. OTOH, I was assuming empires that are efficient at their cultural assimilation tasks, like say the Romans, the Arabs, or the British.

Well, being rather Conservative I don't have much good to say about crooked Commie dictators and mass murderers like Tito, but one has to give him credit for keeping his artificial multi-ethnic country together for as long as he did without resorting to genocide most of the time. In regards to keeping the peace, he was actually rather good for Yugoslavia.

Really, you don't want me fully started on that argument, as my rabid loathing for the Palestinian cause, and modern Arab/Islamist nationalism in general, knows no bounds, a chip on my shoulder the size of Godzilla (nothing personal, just sheer political antipathy), the "bomb them all and let God sort the innocent collateral damage" kind.

Anyway, trying my best to remain at least civil on the subject, let's say that the fact the ongoing Palestinian "refugeeship" sore wound is wholly artificial and manufactured, the unholy marriage of Arab autocracies and failed-state Palestinian leadership to block any possibility of assimilating those people in the Arab countries where they naturally belong culturally, in order to pull a Castro and create the big baddie Israel scapegoat for the horrendous management they have made of the Middle East, making it the second-worst economic/cultural backwater of the current world. If they had let them, just like Germans/French/Portoguese did, the refugee problem would have solved out itself long ago. Anyway, it's not like they are keeping people in those refugee camps with barb wire, they could have always emigrated into other countries, like other Muslims did. But their leaders instead persuaded them into lingering there forever, expecting a "right to return" that the Isreali will accept when Hell friezes over thrice in a row (rightfully so; it's like 30 million Muslims claimed to immigrate in Spain or Italy because Al-Andalus or Muslim Sicily got quashed by Crusaders 800 years ago) and all the loser wars and futile terrorist campaigns ought to have them realize, Israel is not going the way of the Latin Kingdoms. And they could have had a really decent Palestinian homeland (say Gaza and 80-90% of the West Bank) long long ago if they had realized compromise and not Quassam rockets and human bombs in supermarkets (which disqualify a people that actively supports them from any right, I say) are the way to it. I won't shed a tear on the lot of the Palestinians, however harsh it may be. They are the poster child for the (self-)destructive evils of nationalism. If anything, IMO, they got it too lenient, I would have kicked them all beyond the Jordan long ago, built a Really Big Wall, and sent 100 bombs back for any rocket.

I don't exactly like how they've managed it as well, and I think I can safely say I'm rather pro-Israel. But again, the point I was making was simply that transferred populations only settle down if pressured to do so, like the German refugees were by their politically correct government. When they are actively encouraged to keep "fighting", transfers won't provide peace.
 

Olmeka

Banned
Best outcome ?
Germany doesn't win so quickly in Poland in 1939, France intervenes, German military overthrows Hitler, state of things returns to before 1939 with small exceptions Czech Republic restored, Gdansk to Germany, minor corrections in both ways in Polish-German border.
In 10 to 20 years German economy and trade dominate Europe anyway.
 

Irioth

Banned
I don't exactly like how they've managed it as well, and I think I can safely say I'm rather pro-Israel. But again, the point I was making was simply that transferred populations only settle down if pressured to do so, like the German refugees were by their politically correct government. When they are actively encouraged to keep "fighting", transfers won't provide peace.

They will rather sharply reduce the amount of damage and bloodshed anyway. Following with the example, If you move the whole Palestinian population into Jordan or Syria, they won't be able to stage any more suicide attacks on your civilian population, and you can create substantial buffer space to protect your population centers, too. Keep retaliating any attack that comes through with overwhelming 100:1 force, they will eventually tire out and realize they have the means to rebuild a decent lifestyle elsewhere. Or get themselves all dead. Whichever it comes first.
 
Even if miraculously Soviets are somehow pushed to Urals, and DAK wins every single battle (Italians avoid Tarranto? Kriegesmarine uses more surface assets to secure sealines in Med?) and entire Middle East falls to Axis...

First. Japan is going into the war, it cannot survive under US embargo, and in 1941. with even greater success than in OTL Hitler will declare war on USA. And in all possible world, industrial disparity between USA and Japan make the question of victor a simple one.

So in august of 1945. you can pick two targets in Germany to observe the light "brighter than a thousand suns".

For any Nazi A-Bombs and ICBMs you need to many events bordering ASB. Allied strategic bombing has to be contained and resisted far better than in OTL, large PODs as back as '30es have to happen for a real Nazi A-bomb project... In OTL first ICBMs were done by superpoweres with far greater economy than Reich, who were not involved in world war, and still first OTL ICBMs come only in mid '50es.

Germany cant have a bomb in '40es, nor can they get a platform to deliver a bomb. Even if they build appropriate plane they would never have air superiority Allies had in 1945. Speer's talk about Waserfall SAMs and turbojet interceptors that "could have stopped US air offensive if build" is contradicted by the amount of time it was needed to get practical SAMs in OTL.

And if Japan decides to bail out and avoid war, outside of completely different politicians and mentalities in US and UK than in OTL, USA will still eventually enter the war.

Only way to decisively defeat UK is a successful sea mammal, and... well...

Further more, while logistical importance of Land Lease to USSR is crucial, in 1941. and 1942. the amount of aid was minimal. Lack of political resolve in West, combined with the fact that Battle for Atlantic was still going on and Kriegesmarine still had assets in Norway greatly limited amount of Arctic aid convoys.

So it is very likely that even without USA Land Lease aid USSR could manage to survive till late 1942... and afterwards there is simply not much Germany can do to win. Sure, need to compensate Land Lease resources from domestic sources will reduce their available strength compared to OTL, but would it be enough to doom them? And while US aid can be removed from a scenario, UK will still send some. They have a freaking rail line trough Persia used for that very purpose.


Frankly, Germany winning WWII requires them rolling a 20 99% of time, and getting a 21 rest of time. On a D20.
 

Irioth

Banned
Even if miraculously Soviets are somehow pushed to Urals, and DAK wins every single battle (Italians avoid Tarranto? Kriegesmarine uses more surface assets to secure sealines in Med?) and entire Middle East falls to Axis...

Which means Churchill is ousted from power and the UK surrenders in any plausible world.

First. Japan is going into the war, it cannot survive under US embargo, and in 1941. with even greater success than in OTL Hitler will declare war on USA.

Without UK in the war, and Barbarossa going along better than OTL ? he has no reason whatsoever. His master plan was envisaged attacking the USA in the 1970s-1980s, if any. It's in the book he wrote after Main Kampf. For the next generation, he planned to consolidate his Russian conquests.

And in all possible world, industrial disparity between USA and Japan make the question of victor a simple one.

So in august of 1945. you can pick two targets in Germany to observe the light "brighter than a thousand suns".

Only if the USA are (still) at war with Germany.

In OTL first ICBMs were done by superpoweres with far greater economy than Reich, who were not involved in world war, and still first OTL ICBMs come only in mid '50es.

Please point me to the data that show '50s Soviet economy to be "far greater" than the 40s Reich, 'cause I'm deeply skeptical about that. :rolleyes:

And if Japan decides to bail out and avoid war, outside of completely different politicians and mentalities in US and UK than in OTL, USA will still eventually enter the war.

Deep end ASB. The American people was consistently 80-90% against picking a fight with Nazi Germany without a direct menace to the American continent. Much, much, much more so if UK was out of the war and Hitler was just mopping up the Red Army. Roosevelt asking a declaration of war from the Congress in such conditions would have been laughed away at best, impeached at worst. No way in heaven the American people was willing to save the Bolsheviks from Hitler. If anything, once the UK was out of the war, they would have been willing to lend Hitler an hand.

Further more, while logistical importance of Land Lease to USSR is crucial, in 1941. and 1942. the amount of aid was minimal. Lack of political resolve in West, combined with the fact that Battle for Atlantic was still going on and Kriegesmarine still had assets in Norway greatly limited amount of Arctic aid convoys.

Yes, sure the fact that Land-Lease was keeping the Russian people from starving and proving the Red Army all of their trucks was insignificant. :rolleyes:

Hitler lost Barbarossa with several blunders, Stalin didn't win it by any means.

So it is very likely that even without USA Land Lease aid USSR could manage to survive till late 1942...

Assuming Hitler does exactly all the same OTL strategic blunders, otherwise Stalin sits in Sverdlovsk by late 1941 or mid-1942. And once Soviets have lost Ukraine, Moscow, and the Russian Heartland, they are toast. They are down to the level of Italy or Japan with their own Siberian and central Asia manpower and industrial resources. Not a real trouble for the Wehrmacht to contain.

Sure, need to compensate Land Lease resources from domestic sources will reduce their available strength compared to OTL, but would it be enough to doom them?

Yes. The more the Wehrmacht advances in Russian territory, the more the Soviets loses manpower and industrial pools.

And while US aid can be removed from a scenario, UK will still send some. They have a freaking rail line trough Persia used for that very purpose.

This is laughable. The UK had barely resources to feed their own Army without USA help. Churchill was frantic about getting that Land-Lease. Feeding the Land-lease lifeline for the Red Army too... I suppose the glorious British Army reconquers the Rebel American Colonies after they are done with Hitler.
 

Olmeka

Banned
Yes, sure the fact that Land-Lease was keeping the Russian people from starving and proving the Red Army all of their trucks was insignificant
Lend Lease never kept Russia from starving.:rolleyes: It was usefull but not critical.
Quite sure, once those rabid dogs Roosevelt and Churchill are ousted
If Roosvelt(who you mentioned as being object of your hate) and Churchill are 'rabid dogs' as you like to call Allied leaders who fought against Nazi Germany then what are the Germans who wanted to exterminate whole nations by such means as gas chambers ?

and the German Empire switches its Slav policies from "exterminate them" to "culturally assimilate the best sizable chunk of them, deport the rest in Siberia and Central Asia wherew they can build their new homelands"

Why should it ? Because it looks nice to claim it would do so ? And after 20 or 30 or 50 milion are exterminated ? Or perhaps 70 milion ?

To bring these assumptions to the specific case, the Slavs that get culturally assimilated in the Reich only follow the precedent of the Slavic tribes between the Elbe and the Oder
Slavs who formed first states in Central Europe weren't seen in that time as creatures that deserve less rights then dogs or cats. By WW2 they were. And that changes some things.
 

Ian the Admin

Administrator
Donor
Maybe. But my very harsh judgment on the merits of nationalistic minorities mostly comes from reviewing cases such as the Balkans and Palestine.



I would deem that when natural cultural assimilation is possible, it is the best outcome. When unfortunately it is not, forced one or population transfers are a better outcome than Balkanization or ongoing strife from clashing nationalities. Population transfers in the last Century (e.g. Germany-Poland, Greece-Turkey) have managed to create lasting peace and development, even if some bad blood may linger, the clashes stand where those who cannot live together (eg. Cyprus, Bosnia, Kosovo) stubbornly cling to the same peice of land. And this is only in Europe.



Cultures that have something really worthy to provide to mankind, never really get exitinguished, they live on as part of the gestalt that is world culture. To all means and deeds, many cultures like Ancient Greek, Egyptian, and Norse cultures are dead, as the languages and countries that birthed them are extinct. To the matter of leaving a vibrant heritage, they are very living. I'm a strong believer in the worth of Darwinism as applied to cultures, if they are something worth, they most likely thrive and succeed as long as they remain vital, if they decay, their heritage lives on in other cultures. Having something positive to contribute does not mean that any single culture should be kept forvever under ice provided with an indepedent thorn-in-the-paw national state, state-enforced language and "cultural" output which nobody on the face of earth finds any spontaneous use or interest for, and an aggressive nationalism that does its best to inflict Balkanization grief on the rest of the poor world. Homer, Edda, and Ancient Nights have trusted the vagaries of history and succeded in all the ways that matter, even if Vikings, Greek city-states, and the caliphate of Bagdhad are dust. Why not modern Czech, Polish (referred to the conditions of the 1940s of course) Basque, Irish, Franco-Canadian, Serb, or Palestinian should be subject the same standard, and should be entitled to inflict grief and strife on the rest of the world, in order to artificially thrive under wraps ?

That's why I'm very, very fond of ATLs that build strong, world-encompassing empires, and totally loathing of ones that support Balkanization. Cheers and Hurrah for blobs on the map, I say.

Just so you know, advocating ethnic cleansing is a banning offense. Too late now, I guess. Kind of funny to read, though. Palestinians as a dangerously protected nationalistic minority. And those French Canadians, oh no, inflicting grief and strife on the rest of the world.
 
I'm a strong believer in the worth of Darwinism as applied to cultures, if they are something worth, they most likely thrive and succeed as long as they remain vital, if they decay, their heritage lives on in other cultures.

MAAN! Social Darwinism! I thought that thing was as dead as Hitler himself! Not even the Neo-Nazis from the South know what that is.
 
Top