"We hang all the guilties".

What if in 1944 United States and GB had widespread in nazi Germany a statement in which was said: "We know all about the final solution and death camps.Stop this or after the victory we hang all the guilties".
 
Stalin suggested that the trial have 100,000 people hung at the tehran conference. Roosevelt suggested that 99,000 would be enough. Churchill told them they could screw each other.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Stalin suggested that the trial have 100,000 people hung at the tehran conference. Roosevelt suggested that 99,000 would be enough. Churchill told them they could screw each other.


Problem was that FDR thought Stalin was joking. Churchill knew he wasn't.
 
I speak only of the personal of the camps and of those involved in the organization of "final solution" not of the entire German people.
But the point is not this,this can only be a threat.
If the nazies at a time when their victory was uncertain had been warned that the Allies knew,and were punished their crimes,perhaps the machine of the holocaust was jammed.
 
Well, the Nazis have a great defense. They can suddenly ask "What happened in Katyn Forest in 1940?". During this incident the Soviets massacred thousands of Polish civilians. The Nazis can also ask, "What happened in the Ukrainians in 1936-1939?". The point is that the Nazis will point out that the Allies backed Stalin, a man responsible for genocidal acts as well.

Second, the Nazis will suddenly ask, "Why are you concerned only about the Jewish people?". They will point out that starting in 1933 until 1939, the Japanese massacred the Chinese people with complete impunity (e.g. Marco Polo Bridge Incident, 1936). While millions more people were massacred by the Japanese military, the Allies seem to be obssesed with protecting a small minority group. When the Italians massacred Ethiopians in 1935, did the international community do anything? When the Indians were massacred by British troops in the 1920s, did the international community heap scorn?

Third, they will point out that many of the ideas that led to the "Final Solution" actually came from the Allies. Consider the legal justification for ethnic sterilization was based on Buck v. Bell (1928). The idea of the concentration camps was adapted from the 1870s policies towards the Native-Americans. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were written by the head of the Russian Okhrana. Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh were supporters of the Third Reich, throughout the 1930s and 1940s.
 
Well, frankly, your "what if" upholds a different question: Is this not a paradox? During WWII, it was unanimous among the American President, the British Prime Minister, and the Soviet Dictator that Germany and Japan (as far as Japan goes, that was unanimous between the USA and GB) had to be conquered and/or surrender unconditionally. There were no talks of peace with Nazi Germany, not after it became a global war. If this should become a time line, then the POD should have to start with making the Allies have reasons to make peace with NG.
 

Deleted member 5719

Well, the Nazis have a great defense. They can suddenly ask "What happened in Katyn Forest in 1940?". During this incident the Soviets massacred thousands of Polish civilians. The Nazis can also ask, "What happened in the Ukrainians in 1936-1939?". The point is that the Nazis will point out that the Allies backed Stalin, a man responsible for genocidal acts as well.

In that case the nazis may have found that international war time diplomacy has different rules to trite, cliched and superficial internet forum discussions on communism being just as bad as fascism.
 
Well, the Nazis have a great defense. They can suddenly ask "What happened in Katyn Forest in 1940?". During this incident the Soviets massacred thousands of Polish civilians. The Nazis can also ask, "What happened in the Ukrainians in 1936-1939?". The point is that the Nazis will point out that the Allies backed Stalin, a man responsible for genocidal acts as well.

The Soviets blamed Katyn on the Nazis and until the Cold War thats what the western media wanted to believe.
 
I would imagine the Nazi response in 1944 would have been to deny everything; considering the exaggerated anti-German propaganda of World War I (like claims that Germans wore impaled Belgian babies on their helmet spikes) the Germans would no doubt find a credulous audience if they denounced claims of the Holocaust as just more of the same.

IMO, until the Allies actually manage to occupy the camps and obtain irrefutable proof of their existence, the true scale and horror of the Holocaust would probably be too monstrous for anyone to believe the Germans were actually capable of such crimes.
 
Top