I'm hoping that's badly phrased because it sounds like you are saying the Genocides are OK just a minor thing that everyone else ignores.
What if Germany never got invaded by the Allies?
- Thread starter Electro-entertainer
- Start date
- Status
See, this is what I meant. Of course alliances are made for convenience, not exclusively out of half-baked racist dystopian daydreams. Which is exactly why Hitler would have to be way more deranged than OTL (oh boy, what a challenge) to attack Switzerland of all places.
Electro-entertainer
Banned
Well, attacking the u.s wasn't smart. Who said this would be. The Germans hated the Swiss.
Attacking the US was not smart, and neither was attacking the Soviet Union. But attacking the US followed tactical considerations nonetheless: Germany had concluded an alliance with Japan, and the US had leaned pro-Entente already , there was also the precedent of WW1 to induce Hitler to think that the US might join the war against Germany at a late point anyway, and now Japan was at war with the US, so...
Can't see the same kind of logic for Switzerland in the cards already.
Also, which Germans hated which Swiss? I'm not really aware of that, being a German myself.
Don't think they'd sell them fighter aircraft and (for the most part, there was a few incidents, but the British and especially the Americans had a worse record) respect their airspace.
The Swiss have even been criticised for getting cosy with the Nazis, though that was likely looking at their situation and not wanting to get bombed to bits.
Electro-entertainer
Banned
Nazis. I am currently making a scenario about "What if Germany became communist? So far I have concluded Germany would slowly convert to communism and not with a revolutionary style under Paul Levi. The It is a rather obscure topic to research but Germany would be more isolationist like the soviets were in their early years. Still working on it. Sound good so far?
New thread would be better.
Paul Levi, so in the early years?
Interwar Germany and its communists certainly isn't an obscure topic, there are hundreds of good books about it, though many of them may not be available right now due to libraries being locked down. But if you know German, you can find tons online, too.
Germany going communist directly after WW1 certainly is the best bet you have for all of Germany to go communist (the second best is a failing Operation Overlord or such like and succeeding only much later, perhaps in early 1945, and all of Nazi Germany coming to be occupied by the Red Army). But it is still a tough call because there weren't so many communists around. You have a much better chance for similar transformations if the SPD does not split and adopts a pro-peace position (almost) as a whole by 1915 or 1916 at the latest, preventing the SPD-USPD split and in 1918 the Ebert-Groener-Pact. A united and last hour revolutionary SPD declaring one republic on November 9th, 1918, and then seeing itself as the speerhead of the revolution, not its hijackers, sounds more plausible than a Spartakist victory, if you ask me.
As for being isolationist, that's tough for such a highly world market-connected industrial economy. Also, would they not seek an alliance with Soviet Russia in your case?
Electro-entertainer
Banned
I think their position would be a scenario where the Soviets guarantee the independence of Germany at some point. Some fun facts: Spain could possibly become communist depending if the Germans adopted a spread communism approach. Most likely the war would be a lot closer. France would either become communist or have a civil war for sure before 1950
Just not so, Hitler had no interest in somehow taking over the UK in the 1930's, he entertained some hopes of allying with the British, but they were by and large based on Hitler's imagined version of the British and their Empire that had little to do with reality. Also he pursued a series of economic policies that all but guaranteed British hostility, which brings us to the next point...
This is just not remotely true. Hitler inherited an economy in trouble and made matters worse. Refusing to devalue the Reichsmark, pouring what money and resources were available into the creation of military-industrial complex that did nothing for the regular economy as even when it employed people the need to diver resources to rearmament meant to civilian production had to be artificially squeezed. It's a complex topic and with apologies to everyone else who is probably sick of hearing it mentioned I'm going to suggest you read 'Wages of Destruction' by Adam Tooze to get an understanding of the Nazi economy.
6:Break his alliance with Italy and invade Italy, controlling northern Italy directly and setting up an Italian puppet state for everything south of Milan.
[/QUOTE]
With the exception of 1 and 4 none of those were Nazi goals, and Hitler would have been willing to allow Poland to survive if they had been willing to join Germany in an anti-comintern pact. I've already mentioned that any hopes of improving relations with Britain were rendered impossible by Hitler's economic policies in the 30's, before he even started his land grabs. As to France, Hitler had no intention of improving relations with France. Breaking them as a military power and reclaiming Alsace-Lorraine was as much a part of Nazi policy as conquering the USSR. Hitler was oddly loyal to Mussolini, there was never any suggestion that he wanted to invade Italy prior to the military need to do so after the Allied landings and the collapse of Mussolini's regime.
Again not so. There were many politicians who saw Munich as little more than buying time, whether Chamberlain was among them is up for debate, and pressed for an acceleration of rearmament. The guarantee to Poland was a result of political pressure on the government, by far more people than Winston Churchill, who was a backbencher with little power during the 30's. Churchill did not become Prime Minister by some fluke either, he got the job because parliament would support him, they wanted someone willing to fight, not a discredited appeaser.
Sorry but this is just complete nonsense. The people weren't enthusiastic about war, but they were willing to support it. Hitler had shown himself to be utterly untrustworthy and apparently possessed of an unlimited appetite for conquest. Even though people still bought into the myth of 'the bomber will always get through' and imagine gas bombs raining down on British cities practically from day one they still supported going to war. As for Moseley he was a spent force by 1939 and the notion that the public or the military would have supported a coup is sheer fantasy.
Bit of leap from the British don't declare war to a successful invasion of the USSR, indeed if there is no war in the west to distract Hitler the USSR is going to be on much higher alert level and its quite likely that Hitler will insist on attacking sooner, compounding Germany's problems. Lets also not forget what such a victory means, the wholesale enslavement and murder of tens of millions of people.
Why is the USA at war with Germany? If Britain isn't at war with Germany there's a good chance that Roosevelt doesn't run/doesn't win in 1940. Hitler has an entire continent to digest before he even thinks about the USA, especially if it retreats back into isolationism. Japan may go to war with the USA, but with the British not bogged down in a European war its unlikely that Japan can succeed in taking Malaya and Singapore, so its likely to a short war.
And now you're sliding into pure Nazi fantasy, unless you are talking about generations of military build up by Germany...
...And it turns you are talking about 10 years. Just not going to happen barring civil war in the US or Yellowstone erupting.
To summarize my feedback, this scenario is a bigger fantasy than 'Lord of the Rings'.
No we aren't talking about the rank and file, we are talking about the people in charge, who were anything but normal.
But there was a strategic rationale behind declaring war on the USA, however stupid it might be on another level. There's no such rationale for invading Switzerland, indeed as a neutral Switzerland was useful to the Nazi's.
Last edited:
Indeed. The Nazi leadership was not normal. Plus, the Weimar Republic was well on its way out of the depression. The old myth that the Germans voted for the Nazis out of economic desperation just doesn't hold water.
British politics is in flux, I can agree that. If Hitler and Mussolini, and by extension Japan, continue to make gains without being challenged by a war, then it is going to result in a rising of fascist feeling in other countries. It should not be forgotten that there were some huge BUF ralleys in the UK and Dutch fascist ralleys in Holland (just as there were German American ones in the USA). We cannot take usual politics for granted if the entire old order appears to be on the brink of collapse.
Let us say that Hitler's Polish gamble comes off - I don't know exactly how we PoD this into the British political establishment, but maybe Stalin signs agreements with both Hitler and Chamberlain and confuses the issue? Perhaps the Soviet Union invades Poland at the same time as Germany leading to a complete funk in Britain who cannot contemplate a war against both of them? Anyway, either way (or another way) there is no world war over Poland.
We look at UK politics in the 1930s through a reverse interpretation - i.e. we see it from our perspective and as part of what came later. But there was no inevitable reason for the restoration of two-party politics. It could indeed have gone down the line that multi-party politics had failed, so they tried a national government, that failed, so they tried to revise the party system and under Chamberlain that was a catastrophe. Without a wartime national government occurring, and with Europe seeing fascist countries rising up everywhere and apparently winning every confrontation, then what we think of as Oswald Mosley's busted flush might in this scenario be simply a blip, like how the Nazis nose-dived in the late 1920s before rising up again.
It should also not be forgotten that the fascist states had a lot of fans in the British aristocracy, and associated news media. One reason is that the reforms of the 1910s were to them a recent massive affront to their power. The House of Lords had seen its powers increasingly curtailed, and at the same time increased death duties, and the impact of the First World War had badly damaged a lot of the aristocracy. The feeling that the natural order had been upended and that a strongman who did away with democracy might sort things out had a definite appeal.
There would not be a coup in the Italian sense, but there could be something in the German sense - win an election, bring in laws to suppress elections. If Japan is also on the warpath, and I can't see much to derail that unless a Dutch fascist party takes power and agrees to sell them oil, then national security/imperial security could be used as an excuse for a lot of abuse.
Last edited:
Did it? Where's the evidence that support for Hitler was anything more than the idle talk of the chattering classes? Britain was a well established democracy and the Conservatives were the party of the establishment and firmly in power throughout the 30's. Those who might have yearned for a strongman in charge were the ones who had zero influence or power in the first place. Some part of the electorate might have drifted towards Moseley and his fascists in the 1930's but that's a million miles away from supporting some strongman coup, the real establishment was conservative with a small c, determined to maintain the status quo, they certainly aren't going to support some upstart like Moseley.
Last edited:
Ah, yet another, "I'm not a Nazi" white-washer of the Reich.
Any remote doubt about this is settled by your profile.
Thanks for stopping by.
- Status