Could the United States/Britain win WW2 alone?

[Leistungsfähiger Amerikan]

Do you think that the holocaust would have happened without an eastern front?

What? Arguably, one of the driving forces for the Holocaust was the supposed imminent capture of millions of Soviet Jews. Guess what Germany victory in the East entails. More to the point, the Wannsee Conference was in Jan 1942. Just what changes do you propose occurring by then?

I think xchen08 gives a good answer to your question; the Holocaust would be worse. With a successful Eastern Front, more resources will go to the Holocaust, and it will be more noticeable by the Western allies.

I had planned to stop posting in this thread since it has decended into finger pointing arguments and insults but this requires a response.

The Holocaust would not have happened as IOTL. It would have almost infinitely worse. The Nazi's planned to effectively depopulate the General Goverment region (aka Poland) through deportation to labor camps, starvation and extermination through work. All cities in the General Government region were to be razed, to be replaced by German cities with German populations. The plans for the Ukraine and the rest of European Russia was identical.

Hitler's grand plan was to create a mass of landed German veterans overseeing farms where the drastically thinned Slavic population were treated as slaves in their own country.

Had the Nazi's won in the East there wouldn't have been a Jew, Gypsie, or communist left in Europe. The slavic ethnic group would have effectively cease to exist.

The Nazi leadership was batshit insane.

Thanks for the continued responses CalBear. Now, I have changed my mind a few times in this thread. I think loughery111 said it the best; I think that Nazi Germany could win if they play all of their cards perfectly, but it is unlikely. But what puts the nail in the coffin for me is this; the American public will be enraged by the Holocaust, which is something that can very, very easily be propagandized by FDR. If we're talking a 1942 victory in the East for the Nazis, that's plenty of time for the Holocaust to be shown to the American people before the 1944 election. I don't think my views are being too clouded by patriotism to say that the American people will not accept this, and that the knowledge of the Holocaust will create a push to continue in a war against the Nazis, even in the face of fairly large casualties.

 

[Readman]

A total Russian defeat doesn't translate into an automatic German win, IMO. Seriously, look at a map of the then-Soviet Union; it's effing huge, the closest equivelent I could bring to my mind would be like trying to occupy Canada; sure you can claim control over vast swaths of territories but it's going to take men, a lot of men, and resources and equipment to pacify it, and indeed it's not even just Soviet resistance, surely with the SU fragmented various ethnic groups will spring their own resistance, Don Cossacks being one major group off the top of my head. I suppose it's essentially a question of time, and can Germany consolidate it's gains?

 

[mailinutile2]

misunderstood

I am afraid I was misunderstood on two points.

First point is that, by saying "without an eastern front" I did not mean a "defeated Russia" scenario, but rather a "neutral Russia" scenario.

The second point was that you took as a comment what was actually a genuine question.

I agree with many of the points that have been risen, but there are other factors which make me doubt the possibility of performing the Holocaust in a different situation.
Mainly, I think it was an utterly crazy enterprisen so atrocious from the ethical POV and so stupid from an economical , than I wonder if that the total-war-induced dumbness of perceptions (strictly controlled press, government-instigated hysteria, people/mass media less willing to to question propaganda lies, swift military trials for oppositors as "defeatists") would not be necessary to do it.
(if only the western allies were belligerants, in a "neutral Russia" scenario, the eastern territories of germany would not be in a total war situation).
This would not mean that life for jews would be easy: use of gettoes or russian-style pogroms is the classical example.
Howereer, I think that the industrial-murder Holocaust was far worse than gettoes and also far worse than pogroms, and I doubt it could happen in a peace situation since even if the leader is a foam-mouthed psychopath, the limits of his powers are quite broader during wartime that during peacetime..
Also, people would be more willing to oppose a dement idea in peacetime, while during wartime a mislead idea of patriotism could keep their mouth shut.

Since these considerations suggest a course of events and other considerations (the ones you menitioned) suggested another one, I was asking about an opinion on the most probable course

 

[Hörnla]

the closest equivelent I could bring to my mind would be like trying to occupy Canada

Absolutely right, just imagine a Canada with 100 million inhabitants, and many of them quite far north...

 

[Astrodragon]

I am afraid I was misunderstood on two points.

First point is that, by saying "without an eastern front" I did not mean a "defeated Russia" scenario, but rather a "neutral Russia" scenario.

The second point was that you took as a comment what was actually a genuine question.

I agree with many of the points that have been risen, but there are other factors which make me doubt the possibility of performing the Holocaust in a different situation.
Mainly, I think it was an utterly crazy enterprisen so atrocious from the ethical POV and so stupid from an economical , than I wonder if that the total-war-induced dumbness of perceptions (strictly controlled press, government-instigated hysteria, people/mass media less willing to to question propaganda lies, swift military trials for oppositors as "defeatists") would not be necessary to do it.
(if only the western allies were belligerants, in a "neutral Russia" scenario, the eastern territories of germany would not be in a total war situation).
This would not mean that life for jews would be easy: use of gettoes or russian-style pogroms is the classical example.
Howereer, I think that the industrial-murder Holocaust was far worse than gettoes and also far worse than pogroms, and I doubt it could happen in a peace situation since even if the leader is a foam-mouthed psychopath, the limits of his powers are quite broader during wartime that during peacetime..
Also, people would be more willing to oppose a dement idea in peacetime, while during wartime a mislead idea of patriotism could keep their mouth shut.

Since these considerations suggest a course of events and other considerations (the ones you menitioned) suggested another one, I was asking about an opinion on the most probable course

You're attempt to make the Holocaust just a 'thing due to war' fails to understand the facts. That it was started well before the war, it just got up to full speed after Poland.
Concentration camps existed from about 1934, IIRC, and while the Nazis were ok if the Jews left (as long as they left all their money behind), there was no hesitation as to what would happen to the ones who stayed behind.

 

[mailinutile2]

If I could add another note, in a russia-defeated scenario, I think it would be hard for Western allies convincing their own public opinion that a genocide is happening in the middle of german-controlled territory (evidence is harder to obtain, and less conclusive evidence could easily be dismissed as propaganda exagerations).
On the other hand , germans could tour international red cross delegates at katyn to show how wicked soviets were, remarking that the western allies were on the same side and/or still give aid to soviet partisans.

 

[Dan Reilly The Great]

I am afraid I was misunderstood on two points.

First point is that, by saying "without an eastern front" I did not mean a "defeated Russia" scenario, but rather a "neutral Russia" scenario.

The second point was that you took as a comment what was actually a genuine question.

I agree with many of the points that have been risen, but there are other factors which make me doubt the possibility of performing the Holocaust in a different situation.
Mainly, I think it was an utterly crazy enterprisen so atrocious from the ethical POV and so stupid from an economical , than I wonder if that the total-war-induced dumbness of perceptions (strictly controlled press, government-instigated hysteria, people/mass media less willing to to question propaganda lies, swift military trials for oppositors as "defeatists") would not be necessary to do it.
(if only the western allies were belligerants, in a "neutral Russia" scenario, the eastern territories of germany would not be in a total war situation).
This would not mean that life for jews would be easy: use of gettoes or russian-style pogroms is the classical example.
Howereer, I think that the industrial-murder Holocaust was far worse than gettoes and also far worse than pogroms, and I doubt it could happen in a peace situation since even if the leader is a foam-mouthed psychopath, the limits of his powers are quite broader during wartime that during peacetime..
Also, people would be more willing to oppose a dement idea in peacetime, while during wartime a mislead idea of patriotism could keep their mouth shut.

Since these considerations suggest a course of events and other considerations (the ones you menitioned) suggested another one, I was asking about an opinion on the most probable course

First off, whether or not Russia is neutral is irrelevant, the question is whether or not Germany is still dead set on hitlers plans for eastern europe. If such is the case then short of a collapse in france, war with the USSR is almost a guarantee, hitler hated communists and slavs far too much for any other possibility to occur.

That being said, even without a war with russia, the nazi's are still going to be exterminating undesireables in the areas the germans have occupied, so no war with Russia does not equal no holocaust, it simply means a smaller scale holocaust.

 

[mailinutile2]

You're attempt to make the Holocaust just a 'thing due to war' fails to understand the facts. That it was started well before the war, it just got up to full speed after Poland.
Concentration camps existed from about 1934, IIRC, and while the Nazis were ok if the Jews left (as long as they left all their money behind), there was no hesitation as to what would happen to the ones who stayed behind.

Not quite.
The holocaust was not 'a thing due to war', since there is no ethical, moral, economical or rational link between waging that war and slaughtering those people.

I would like to be very clear about it: I am not saying that the war was the cause for the holocaust.

My point is rather that, being the thing so patently atrocious and stupid, I doubt whether the Nazi regime would be able to perform it in a peacetime situation.

It is the same difference passing between saying "I want to do that" and "I am able to do that" :
you are equally guilty by intention, but it could happen that external circumstances prevent you to to the thing

Concentration camps probably existed even before, but it is an historical fact that the sistematical murder began during the war

 

[Hörnla]

I doubt whether the Nazi regime would be able to perform it in a peacetime situation.

I agree for the simple fact that in a peacetime situation, the 3rd Reich wouldn't control enough of Eastern Europe to kill millions of Jews.

In a victorious "peacetime"-situation though (the POD still posits a continuing war against the Anglo-Ameicans), large parts of the Sovjet Union and Poland being subdued at will (and treated badly enough anyways), of course there is the possibility to do this just as it has been done in 1942-45.

Concentration camps probably existed even before, but it is an historical fact that the sistematical murder began during the war

You are absolutely right. Many people tend to forget to make a distinction between concentration camps, extermination camps and the shifts and changes in the whole system between 1933 and 1945. I don't want to know how many people think that only Jews were killed by the Nazis, either.

The systematical killing of disabled persons started slightly before the war, by the way.

 

[mailinutile2]

I agree for the simple fact that in a peacetime situation, the 3rd Reich wouldn't control enough of Eastern Europe to kill millions of Jews.

In a victorious "peacetime"-situation though (the POD still posits a continuing war against the Anglo-Ameicans), large parts of the Sovjet Union and Poland being subdued at will (and treated badly enough anyways), of course there is the possibility to do this just as it has been done in 1942-45.

I am sorry I was not clear.
What I meant is that the will to do the thing is not the same thing as the opportunity to do that.

In a peacetime situation (or even in a limited-war situation), absurd ideas are more likely to be questioned (even in a dictatorial regime), especially if they imply social disturbances and a net economic loss.

This would be particularly the case in the Nazi polycracy, where different groups had very different aims, and local governors often acted as petty kings, trying to prevent others to interfere with their rule.

You are right when you say that there would be the war against the western allies going on, but since that would mean that the eastern half of the german empire is not threatened by invasion, and only marginally exposed to bombardment, I think that coul not quailfy as a total-war situation like the eastern front OTL.

 

[Hörnla]

but since that would mean that the eastern half of the german empire is not threatened by invasion, and only marginally exposed to bombardment, I think that coul not quailfy as a total-war situation like the eastern front OTL.

I think that this is a classical AH scenario of "maybe, maybe not". It is imaginable that you are right, but you might as well be wrong. I agree that we disagree.

I would like to add the following points:

-Poland, i.e. the place of most extermination camps, was far away from any fronts for the longest time of the Holocaust during OTL as well.
-the mass-killing of Eastern-European jews by the so-called Einsatzgruppen started at the time of the beginning of the war against the Sovjet Union; the Wannsee-Conference gave a new direction to the holocaust, but it had already started.
-A successful conclusion of the war in the East can't be assumed much earlier than in the first half of 1942. Therefore, we wouldn't need a situation where an initiative is stopped or stillborn, but where an already taken path which correlates with central points of the NS ideology has to be stopped or decisively "watered down". IMHO, we would need an even more massive POD. Hitler dies and the power within the Reich shifts to persons/organization which might be seen as different minded, especially nobody with a skull on the cap!

 

[I Blame Communism]

If I could add another note, in a russia-defeated scenario, I think it would be hard for Western allies convincing their own public opinion that a genocide is happening in the middle of german-controlled territory (evidence is harder to obtain, and less conclusive evidence could easily be dismissed as propaganda exagerations).
On the other hand , germans could tour international red cross delegates at katyn to show how wicked soviets were, remarking that the western allies were on the same side and/or still give aid to soviet partisans.

The Nazis never made a secret of how they imprisoned all captured Soviet troops in barbed wire enclosures with no food or shelter and let 60% of them die. When you set fire to a village and machine-gun all the inhabitants whenever the Partisans attack you, you can't really make much of a secret of that. This had all come out during the invasion. The Nazis will have a hell of a job hushing it all up.

Katyn was a horrible tragedy, but I'd like to point out that the Nazis killed more people than Britain and America lost, total, just by attempting to take Leningrad; and the world knew what was happening in Leningrad. If they actually take it, well, good lord...

 

[mrmandias]

If I could add another note, in a russia-defeated scenario, I think it would be hard for Western allies convincing their own public opinion that a genocide is happening in the middle of german-controlled territory (evidence is harder to obtain, and less conclusive evidence could easily be dismissed as propaganda exagerations).
On the other hand , germans could tour international red cross delegates at katyn to show how wicked soviets were, remarking that the western allies were on the same side and/or still give aid to soviet partisans.

This is pre-Watergate, remember. The American public trusts its government, at least in foreign affairs.

 

[mrmandias]

Katyn was a horrible tragedy,

It wasn't a tragedy, it was an evil, a sin, a crime, and a horror.

But I doubt it will help the Nazis any. First, they aren't going to get a sympathetic hearing. Second, in TTL the Russkis aren't allies, to even if the US and the UK are willing to accept that the Soviets are also evil totalitarians, Germany does not benefit.