True off course, it would be a brief campaign season. I asssumed an objective for the Fall of 1939 would be to annihilate the exposed Soviet army within Poland and then start again when the mud freezes.
Not too fine a plan though.
Is that a challenge?Gudenstein is on this thread, so you can probably find some implausible excuses to help the Nazis do better. These possibly involve handwaving free extra German food and coal.
But seriously, Alien Space Bats forum is over *that* way. Look at who made up the governments of the UK and France. Then explain why, with Germany attacking past Poland into the USSR, they don't join Stalin in crushing the Nazis.
Would the rest of Europe send aid to combat the red menace and if the Soviet Union is overrun by Germany with a possible coalition, how will the world see Hitler? Could he become the greatest man of the century?
When I say this, it is because I find interest in how we perceive history. Had things gone differently, a terrible individual could be seen as the ideal person.I have this visual of Hitler spending his last days in his bunker doing the Brando/De Niro "I could have been a contender but now I'm just a bum" routine. Only in this version he's going "I could have been the greatest. Now I'm nothing but genocidal maniac".
If you're legitimately asking these questions, your short a few details here and there. Just a few.
But what if the English and French were actually aiding the Germans battle the Soviets?
If I may propose a different POD...
Churchill doesn't become PM. Halifax convinces who ever is PM to sue for peace during or after Dunkirk. Hitler in OTL thought that the UK would eventually sue for peace so this suits his plans. He takes a year to prepare for Operation Barbarossa in 1941.
When I say this, it is because I find interest in how we perceive history. Had things gone differently, a terrible individual could be seen as the ideal person.
When I say this, it is because I find interest in how we perceive history. Had things gone differently, a terrible individual could be seen as the ideal person.
In Hitler's case, two key things that should have gone differently to not been seen as a terrible individual were:When I say this, it is because I find interest in how we perceive history. Had things gone differently, a terrible individual could be seen as the ideal person.
This is an interesting discussion when it comes to Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill - among others, mostly pre-19th century. The only people who genuinely think this about Hitler are people who are ignorant of key facts and/or Nazi apologists. I assume you are the former but, pro tip here, it's generally not an idea you want to leave open to assumption.
I believe Hitler had a chance of winning world war 2. If the Madagascar Plan happened, Jews could be transported there instead of being killed and this might inspire similar ideas of sending other 'undesirables' to different lands.In Hitler's case, two key things that should have gone differently to not been seen as a terrible individual were:
1) not starting a world war (and losing it, but Germany would almost always lose it)
2) not killing millions of people in concentrationcamps or otherwise, or not getting the word out that it happened (and the latter would be kinda hard)
So: pretty much ASB
Shipping multiple millions of Jews and other undesirables to Madagascar that only had a population of 4 million in 1940 may as well be considered as a death sentence for the majority of the population of Madagascar. How would they be housed or fed? The only way to do it would be with the UK and French providing the shipping and the support for the overpopulated Madagascar island while being at war with Germany.I believe Hitler had a chance of winning world war 2. If the Madagascar Plan happened, Jews could be transported there instead of being killed and this might inspire similar ideas of sending other 'undesirables' to different lands.
Shipping multiple millions of Jews and other undesirables to Madagascar that only had a population of 4 million in 1940 may as well be considered as a death sentence for the majority of the population of Madagascar. How would they be housed or fed? The only way to do it would be with the UK and French providing the shipping and the support for the overpopulated Madagascar island while being at war with Germany.
Shipping multiple millions of Jews and other undesirables to Madagascar that only had a population of 4 million in 1940 may as well be considered as a death sentence for the majority of the population of Madagascar. How would they be housed or fed? The only way to do it would be with the UK and French providing the shipping and the support for the overpopulated Madagascar island while being at war with Germany.
If Britain and France were not at war with Germany, they might accept. In a very unlikely TL this could take place. Also would the Europeans care about the native Madagascarians? Many today support the Israelis despite the Palestinian claim to the land. How are they housed and fed? Land and food taken from the natives, maybe rich Jews might invest in the settlements to make the situation better for Jews there and increasing their own reputation (though this seems a little unlikely).