Worst outcome for Germany

No, becasue then threads would be taken up by everyone making stupid irrlevent comments trying to win. Really.

I'll have to agree with you there. I should know, I'm guilty myself. (Then again, I strive to make relevant stupid comments)

I think another bad-case scenario for Germany would be if the Yanks nuked it and later the Soviets still occuppied the whole place. Two-for-one crap deal.

Anthrax. Lots and lots of anthrax.
 
Hitler wins.

While without a doubt that would have been very bad, there's still worse. Let me take a look at a few very bad things which Germany evaded in OTL. A lot of them do not involve Germany winning, but performing better but losing anyways:

-> Germany surrendered early enough before the first atomic bomb was ready, and was spared of the fate of having an atomic bomb dropped on Germany. So, Germany performing the inch better to hold out a few months longer will assure the first atomic bomb getting dropped on Germany.

-> Granted, Germany had the Oder-Neisse line forced upon it by Stalin, but apart from that, Germany was spared of a collective land-grab by it's neighbours, such as the Bakker-Schutt-Plan.

-> The Morgenthau Plan was also not fully executed in OTL (well, it was attempted half-heartedly, but abandoned). The main reason for the failure of the plan was that it was utterly impractical in the face of the starting Cold War. This may be avoided by the Soviet Union being in a much worse shape after WWII, which again, would involve Germany performing the inch better in WWII, but ending up losing anyways. The Soviet Union achieved only a very pyrrhic victory, and is in no shape to exert a threat onto the West after the war. In such a scenario, the Morgenthau Plan might be feasible. Of course, there's the problem that the area of modern Germany could only sustain about 30 million people by subsistence agriculture, and Germany in 1945 had about 60 million people, which would have meant either mass starvation or half of the population being forcible removed to elsewhere effectively as slaves. Depending on how revanchist the Allies are (and depending on the factor that they have zero intent in proving history that they're the nicer victors because they treat the defeated better), this might actually happen, however.

-> Germany refrained from using chemical weapons for bombardment in OTL. If they had, this would have triggered Allied retaliation in kind, which would have *tremendously* increased the number of civilian casualties in Germany.

-> Lastly, there's the possibility of Germany never again achieving national sovereignity of any degree. Even in OTL, Germany only re-achieved full sovereignity in 1990, but imagine a scenario where not even the partial sovereignity of the German states in 1949 wasn't even achieved.
 
Maybe the question should be rephrased as: What is the BEST possible outcome for the Western Allies against Germany in World War Two. This way, you can avoid the question of the Morgenthau Plan. And people should consider that the best outcome for Allies/worst outcome for Germany could include Japan and Italy never entering the war; it could also include various scenarios in which Stalin is removed from power in the Soviet Union and after the war the Soviets keep relatively friendly relations with the West (the "cold" in cold war drops to subzero levels).
 
Germany geting pulverized with atomic weaponry is arguably worse as bad as Hitler was...

Actually, you might get the two for the price of one: Imagine Hitler wins, and then you get a nuclear arms race between Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and eventually things escalate into an all-out war and the two nuke each other and the rest of the planet into oblivion.
 

Deleted member 1487

By far the worst outcome for Germany and Europe is to have Britain resort to using their weaponized anthrax to sterilize Central Europe. Death of Western Civilization, it doesn't get worse than that.
 
By far the worst outcome for Germany and Europe is to have Britain resort to using their weaponized anthrax to sterilize Central Europe. Death of Western Civilization, it doesn't get worse than that.

While I agree it would be the death of Germany and quite a bit of the surrounding countries (1) from there to the death of Western Civilization there is quite a bit of an stretch.

-------
(1) I kind of have to. I called it first. :)
 

Deleted member 1487

While I agree it would be the death of Germany and quite a bit of the surrounding countries (1) from there to the death of Western Civilization there is quite a bit of an stretch.

-------
(1) I kind of have to. I called it first. :)

By no means did I mean to imply that Germany is Western Civilization, but Anthrax is a bio-weapon and with Germany being linked to continental Europe, these things have a way of spreading....
 
By no means did I mean to imply that Germany is Western Civilization, but Anthrax is a bio-weapon and with Germany being linked to continental Europe, these things have a way of spreading....

the way Anthrax is makes that less likely, there isn't any spread directly from one infected person to another, rather by way of spores, so the farther from Germany you get less likely to find a spore.
 

Deleted member 1487

the way Anthrax is makes that less likely, there isn't any spread directly from one infected person to another, rather by way of spores, so the farther from Germany you get less likely to find a spore.

Soldiers cold carry them in their uniforms as they are transfered. Perhaps it might be maliciously spread too as Hitler is informed what's going down.
 
Top