alternatehistory.com

OK, So the Nazis had pretty much won the war in Western Europe by that point. The only thing that really lost them the overall war was their bringing in two powers against them that could have easily remained non-belligerent against Nazi Germany for the foreseeable future.


I don't know who the actual designated Nazi successor would've been at that moment in history, but it seems unlikely they would've been stupid enough to launch Barbarossa under the circumstances that Hitler did. Further, would the UK have been more inclined to make peace with a different leader?

Also, Hitler's reputation as hugely successful conqueror would've seemed assured had he died shortly after the conquest of France, no?

This board seems to be biased toward the idea that it would've been difficult for the Nazis to "win" in a decisive sense given the historical realities, but that's because of Hitler's personality and the realities of the USSR and the USA aligned against them.

I think this scenario avoids that, because a reasonable successor could've been content with the restoration of Germany as the dominant power in Western Europe and the consolidations of the gains of '39-'40.
Top