Would you have liked Hitler to win the war

MooseJam

What about this one would you have liked Hitler to have won the war ? or maybe not won it in the end but had more success - perhaps an invasion of England or to have taken Moscow and defeated the reds.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

While I've done my best to appear impartial on this forum, I really must say that I'm extremely happy Hitler was stopped.


The idea of him winning the war is sickening.


This post is valid under free speech etc, but tread carefully here folks.

Sherifu

The man had a vision. He just got sloppy.

castie

If he had won im sure we would all be loving him right now. Winners in history always come out on top.

Lockstep

Given the way he ruled, I'm sure resistance would spring up all over the place.


THe Irish were conquered by Cromwell in the 17th century and there were always opponents to him.

Chong

I am disgusted by this post , I cant put in to words what I want to say about this thread.

FFS think of the all the people who died, Both sides of my family fought in the war, one for the RAF and two others for Dutch Resistance. My Grand Uncle was a Dutch POW captured by the Germans, OP it sickens me when I see tripe like you post.

mikemac

From what perspective kickoutthejams?
An Irish person looking back at history now or if you were a German citizen at the time?

Edit: If you are asking an opinion of posters then I'd consider Stalin far worse than Hitler. So to see Stalin defeated would have no big great tragedy
Don't reply back with a what if scenario on how could the war be won then. I'm just directly answered the question here

Fratton Fred

micmclo wrote: »

From what perspective kickoutthejams?
An Irish person looking back at history now or if you were a German citizen at the time?

Edit: If you are asking an opinion of posters then I'd consider Stalin far worse than Hitler. So to see Stalin defeated would have no big great tragedy
Don't reply back with a what if scenario on how could the war be won then. I'm just directly answered the question here

Stalin was worse beecause no one stopped him. If Hitler had the free reign Stalin did God knows how many he would have killed.

Lockstep

micmclo wrote: »

From what perspective kickoutthejams?
An Irish person looking back at history now or if you were a German citizen at the time?

I was responding to Castie's claim that we'd all be loving Hitler if he'd won.

Both Irish people nowadays disagree with him as well as German citizens at the time.

Dictators always have to put up with dissent.

Lockstep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Stalin was worse beecause no one stopped him. If Hitler had the free reign Stalin did God knows how many he would have killed.

He's right.

Stalin's death toll is around 30 million over his entire span.

The holocaust was around 11million in a much shorter expanse of time.

peasant

MooseJam wrote: »

What about this one would you have liked Hitler to have won the war ? or maybe not won it in the end but had more success - perhaps an invasion of England or to have taken Moscow and defeated the reds.

What kind of question is that?

I mean, seriously ...do you really expect an intelligent answer to this one?

Stick with "Daddy or chips"

mike65

We missed out on the road building schemes, its true...(or wtf??)

Mike.

Disgusting thought.

Evil ideology, fascism.

Fight it wherever you see it.

He would never have truly "won". Us Irish would have just got our independence, and not liked to see it removed (do you really think he would have stopped in Newry? What with one of the largest natural harbours in Europe closer to France than Scapa Flow?) Resistance would have ensued, and the US,egged on by both the Jewish and Irish lobby, would have continued.

So either Hitler gets defeated, or he dominates world politics and kill all "impure" people. Like him to win? I don't think so.

Agent Smith

Cruijff wrote: »

I am disgusted by this post , I cant put in to words what I want to say about this thread.

At least we Get to Ask it.


Personally, i would have Followed the call Of James Dillon and Signed up with the british army, had i been around at the time

Havermeyer

Although we may have gained some of the good traits of the Germans had Hitler won the war, I think the negatives would have greatly outweighed the positives of a German victory.

I am a believer in free speech, so therefore will not criticise the Op's decision to ask such a question. However, I think this question answers itself and therefore renders itself null and void.

No 'sane' person would have wanted a German victory on the grounds of what the nazi party stood for.

Havermeyer

castie wrote: »

If he had won im sure we would all be loving him right now. Winners in history always come out on top.

Stalin was a winner, when it comes to WWII. However, I don't know anybody who loves him or thought he came out of it looking like a saviour (for want of a better word).

Amazotheamazing

Of course not, but lets not pretend the Cold War that followed WW2 which inflicted untold misery to Asia and Africa was a great outcome either. Very few countries come out of WW2 with much credit imo, you have America developing and using atomic weapons, Russia subjugating the Eastern European states, we had wars in Korea and Vietnam, we had both the US and USSR propping up hideous regimes in Africa etc.

Hitler needed to be stopped, and I'm glad he was stopped, but that's a euro-centric view and i wouldn't be too surprised if people in other countries took a dimmer view of the US and USSR's rise to prominence.

EamonnKeane

Had Hitler won, most of Asia (and Australia too) would be under Japanese dominance also

jhegarty

EamonnKeane wrote: »

Had Hitler won, most of Asia (and Australia too) would be under Japanese dominance also

That presumes that peace was maintained between Germany and Japan.. .i can't imagine it would have lasted long.... .

Amazotheamazing

EamonnKeane wrote: »

Had Hitler won, most of Asia (and Australia too) would be under Japanese dominance also

Perhaps a huge portion would have been, but most of it?

Course, communism wasn't a raging success in China or North Korea either, could communism have succeeded in either country without the USSR's victory in WW2?

Do you think Japan would have had the time and resources, after subduing China, India etc, to turn it's attention to Australia? Would take a lot of troops to occupy Asia alone, let alone launch a long range invasion of a continent as inhospitable as Australia.

Mahatma coat

Although quite large, Australia was rather sparsley populated at the time, the Japanese could have easily take Australia in the early years of the wat when Australian Troops were being sent to Europe.

I for one would be curious to see what sort of world we would live in today had Hitler won, a much smaller global population would be one difference, I doubt that any of the problems that arose form the Welfare states that sprung up after the war would be troubling us, and there would be (well by now anyway) Global peace.

also by now we'd all be convinced that Hitler was a great fella and that churchill was a miserable drunk and Rosevelt was a rejectcripple

peasant

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I for one would be curious to see what sort of world we would live in today had Hitler won, a much smaller global population would be one difference, I doubt that any of the problems that arose form the Welfare states that sprung up after the war would be troubling us, and there would be (well by now anyway) Global peace.

also by now we'd all be convinced that Hitler was a great fella and that churchill was a miserable drunk and Rosevelt was a rejectcripple

How would a fascist, oppressive worldwide (or close to) dictatorship ensure "world peace" ?

I think (I hope!) that I speak for many people here in saying that nothing could have convinced me that Hitler was a "great fella" or that what he stood for was a good thing.

Remember ...when he got into power, only 33% of German population thought that way. That number would have fallen considerably a few years down the line, even before the war, but by then the Gestapo made sure that there was no opposition.

Mahatma coat

I'm not sayin there wouldnt be problems, just that there would be a whole different st of problems to the ones we have now. interestin to theorise how the world would have turned out

Lockstep

Mahatma coat wrote: »

also by now we'd all be convinced that Hitler was a great fella and that churchill was a miserable drunk and Rosevelt was a rejectcripple

Even in Stalin's regime, whereby a cult of personality was intrinsic, there were plenty of people who saw him as a psychotic nutjob.

Mahatma coat

was waitin for that, I remember watchin a few doccos whic equated the death of JFK for the Americans in a similar vein to the death of 'Uncle Joe' to a generation of russians

castie

America dropped Atomic Bombs on innocent people.
"Wrong place, Wrong time" for them.

At least Hitler had his reasons.

*I am in no way justifying or supporting those reasons, i am merely saying he had a reason to kill the people he did. What was Americas reason for using nuclear weapons?

Also consider that less than have of the nuclear material of those bombs dropped actually "worked" for lack of a better word. So think of it like this, How much damage did they actually want to inflict? Because alot less than half was done.

Yet History sees America as Heroes for entering the War to Defeat hitler.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

uh..

america dropped the nukes so they wouldn't have to continue a long and costly ground invasion of each single japanese island.

seems to have worked too.
doesn't mean it wasn't sheer bloody murder, but they did have reasons.

seamus

castie wrote: »

*I am in no way justifying or supporting those reasons, i am merely saying he had a reason to kill the people he did. What was Americas reason for using nuclear weapons?

You're looking at it from our relatively safe, comfortable, stable, democratic and humanitarian chairs. The same standards expected of warring nations today, was not expected in times past when a war against a country was a war against its people, not just its Government.

The fact that it looked like most of the world was falling to ****, meant that very few Americans would have an issue with their Government taking pretty dramatic action to stop the war and maintain a safe country. The nukes were effective, you can't deny that. You also can't judge their actions based on today's morals. They didn't half a fraction of the information about the impact of such weapons that we have today.

On the topic of Germany having won the war, there may have been a lot of importance in who managed to defeat the Americans. Whoever did it, would have gotten their hands on some almost-there nuclear equipment. And we know that neither Germany nor Japan in those times would hesitate to use it.

Mahatma coat

America dropped the bomb, once it had been completed - the whole researchin and developin is a nother matter- because the general belief was - and this has borne out- it would bring japanese war efforts to a sudden stop instead of a prolonged campaign which would have ensued in the deaths of millions of people from both sides.

Hitler on the other hand had Specific personal reasons to want the deaths of large sections of society, this is never an acceptable proposition, that said large amounts of German people went along withthe extermination of elements of society for their own reasons

castie

So kill that many people to save money?

Who is more evil?

the person that kills for religious reasons

or

the person that kills to save money.

bottom line is they came out of that war looking like heroes despite what they did.

"The release at 08:15 (Hiroshima time) was uneventful, and the gravity bomb known as "Little Boy", a gun-type fission weapon with 60 kg (130 pounds) of uranium-235, took 57 seconds to fall from the aircraft to the predetermined detonation height about 600 meters (1,900 ft) above the city. It created a blast equivalent to about 13 kilotons of TNT. (The U-235 weapon was considered very inefficient, with only 1.38% of its material fissioning.)"

Taken from wikipedia. 1.38%!!!!! and still killed 140,000. Imagine if it was close to 70 or 80!

castie

The United States expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October.

Imagine if Japan had'nt surrendered?

jhegarty

castie wrote: »

So kill that many people to save money?

They dropped the bomb to save American lives ...


plus more lives would have been lost on both sides if they need to do a land invasion of japan, ever civilian would have been expected to fight to the death....

castie

more lives based on the 1.38% of the bomb actually going off.

What about long term damage from nuclear exposure.

140,000 was the count only days after the bomb hit Hiroshima.
If more had fissioned then the fallout would have been catastrophic.

motherfunker

I dont think Ireland is independent yet sea slacker, there is a little place called Ulster that still has a few british soilders walking around it. I know this is slightly off topic but that kind of statement really annoys me. Take a walk around Derry and tell me if it is independent of british rule.

Back on topic now, yes it is not good to say you would have liked Hitler to win, he started the whole thing so is therefore to blame for all the deaths, but look at the world today, it is no great place to live, America is acting in much the same manner as Germany then, they are not commiting genocide on as mass a scale as hitler but that is mainly due to the presence of news cameras on every battlefield today, they would not get away with it. What would they do if they could get away with it, they are already flouting most of the laws of the Geneva convention as it is. At least Hitler was doing it out of a genuine belief in helping the German people to become great, america is just doing it to help a minority of its mega rich citizens. Perhaps if Hitler had succeded, America would not have been in the position to get strong enough to become the world bully that it is today. People have to remember that Hitler was not the only bad guy in the world then, the british invented the concentration camp, they slaughtered their way through Ireland, Africa, asia, Australia for centuries before in just the same was as Hitler tried to do. Most of the problems in the 3rd world today are a direct result of britains empire building strategy, they made whole countries completely dependant on growing a single crop so the british people could eat bannas or drink tea. They completely abolished the tribal boundaries that existed for centuries in Africa leading to alot of the tribal warefare that exists today in many of its countries. British nobility hunted Aboriginies in Australia for sport, on horseback with rifles. After WW1 britain, having nothing else to do with them, sent thousands of battle scarred madmen to Ireland to become their police force and gave them a free hand in how they dealt with the Irish population, how many innocent people died at the hands of the black and tans.
I could go on and on about british attrocities before, during and since WW2 but I hope I have got my message across. Yes Hitler was bad but so were Britain, over a much longer timescale and with less witnesses.
To the guy whose family fought for the dutch and the raf, I can understand why you would be so repulsed by this question, hopefully then you can understand why I would feel the same way about britain winning the war, they have been killing Irish people for 800 years, so to answer the question, yes I would have liked Hitler to destroy the british in ww2, I think a negotiated peace would have been the best way to finish WW2, that way none of the existing super powers would have emerged so strong, the cold war may never have happened, most of Europe may not have been over run by oppressive communist regimes and dictatorships, the USA would not be the global dominatrix she is today and Britain would have got the kick in the teeth she deserved for the years of destruction she reaped upon the various smaller nations of the world.
And before i get any anti british crap off anyone, I do not hate british people, I have several english friends, my children play with english kids, I lived in a house with english, scottish and welsh people. I hate the british system and for that I make no apologies.

seamus

castie wrote: »

Taken from wikipedia. 1.38%!!!!! and still killed 140,000. Imagine if it was close to 70 or 80!

Indeed. Imagine if they hadn't dropped it on Hiroshima, but spent another 6 months perfecting the weapon? Then when the war was really starting to look like it wasn't going America's way, perhaps something closer to 50 kilotons would have been dropped on Tokyo.

The basic way I see it, is that we were lucky that the Americans bulled on and dropped the weapon shortly after figuring out how to build it. All of our reluctance to use nuclear weapons now draws primarily from the realisation of what took place when those two nukes went off. The whole world stopped, went "Whoah", and realised just how close we were coming to annihilating ourselves.

Let's say the war ended without the nukes being dropped, and the cold war proceeded. Just 16 years after the Americans had developed their bomb, the Russians had developed something capable of delivering 100 megatons (that's 10,000 times bigger than Hiroshima) and also had a means of launching nuclear missiles.
Do you think the US and Russia would have been so reluctant to use them, had they not seen the effects in Japan?

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

marcsignal

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I for one would be curious to see what sort of world we would live in today had Hitler won....

We'd have a single European Currency, Open Borders, Laws would be passed in Europe affecting us in Ireland, and.......
Oh Wait !! :eek::eek:


I'll get my coat

jmayo

The Scientist wrote: »

If he ever did invade Ireland (which was planned) i like to think i would have joined the underground movement rather than joining the British Army.
Guerilla warfare was something we had done extremely well 20 odd years beforehand so i'm sure if there was an Irish Resistance it would have worked quite well.

Maybe our resistance would not work out so well.
How long would the Irish people, who always had it's own traitors who shopped various resistances members down through the ages, have put up with the type of reprisals that the Germans meeted out in places like Yugoslavia.
A lot of primarily Catholic countries (Austria, Croatia) were ardent supporters of fascism. Would we have been the same ?
Also a fair amount of people on this island would have welcomed them in, seeing it as a chance to have a go at the unionists in the North.
They would be our Quislings.

It is interesting, and also I feel worrying, the way certain threads on both here and the history forum are highlighting a quiet sizable number of posters who appear to think that Hitler was not quiet that bad.

Some seem to believe that both the USSR/Stalin and the USA have been responsible for more or as many deaths as Hitlers Nazi regime.
(Yes Stalin was responsible for more deaths but a sizable chunk of his total were killed during the Great Patriotic War with Germany)
One poster even says that it is the Jewish controlled media that has made the holocaust out to be so bad and why don't they highlight US deaths by proxy regimes.
Others appear to think that by the US dropping nuclear weapons they were as bad as Hitler.
Another seems to excuse Hitler because he only wanted to make his own country greater and would only have affetced Europe.

IMHO these are all worrying as they are making excuses for what has to be one of the darkest periods in human history, where one regime led by what could only be termed a physcopath and his sycophantic followers, actually made the killing of people into an industrial process.
The choice of who would be killed was determined by the person's race, sexuality, religous believes or their physical welbeing.

Other regimes and countries down through the years have killed and massacred many people but none ever setup such a process dedicated to try and a eliminate millions of people based on a few peoples' hatreds.

The world's nations said never again in 1945, but we have since turned our backs on Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur and not to mention smaller and less publicised conflicts.
That is something to be ashamed of, but all nations, big and small have sat at the UN and done nothing.
But all these atrocities still does not allow anyone to make excuses for Hitler and the Nazis.

We make slight excuses today, tomorrow our children make bigger ones, before long we forget and mankind repeats it.

MooseJam

Cruijff wrote: »

I am disgusted by this post , I cant put in to words what I want to say about this thread.

FFS think of the all the people who died, Both sides of my family fought in the war, one for the RAF and two others for Dutch Resistance. My Grand Uncle was a Dutch POW captured by the Germans, OP it sickens me when I see tripe like you post.

seriously dude you need to take a chill pill, it's just a harmless question

TerrorFirmer

The Scientist wrote: »

If he ever did invade Ireland (which was planned) i like to think i would have joined the underground movement rather than joining the British Army.
Guerilla warfare was something we had done extremely well 20 odd years beforehand so i'm sure if there was an Irish Resistance it would have worked quite well.

If you think that the English were harsh during their occupation of Ireland, it literally pales in comparison to the methods used by the German army to combat partisans and insurgents in occupied Europe.

I sincerely doubt that an underground movement would last long in Ireland with random execution of civilians en masse - the legacy of the war of independence and civil war would probably accelerate a demand for peace rather then one for resistance.

As for the question itself, absolutely not and there is absolutely no valid reason for anyone to think otherwise. Hitler did not just kill 6 million Jews and undesirables - not to mention the millions of war dead owing to his war - he killed merely 6 million out of a pool designated for extermination that in the event of victory would probably have eventually included 20-30 million people at the very least.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

marcsignal

The Abwehr made fairly detailed plans for a potential invasion of Ireland, and several attempts were made to establish contact with the IRA. 2 IRA men, "Frank Ryan" and "Sean Russell" (Who's statue stood in Fairview Park in Dublin, until it was decapitated a few years ago) were major players in this plan. Their Abwehr codenames were "Richard 1" and "Richard 2". There were contingency plans to drop 120 Waffen SS / Paratroops with equipment the IRA would have been short of (Anti-Tank weapons and demolition explosives).

The Abwehr were not at all impressed with the IRA, and considered them amateurs. However the Abwehr intelligence on Ireland was absolutely dreadful too. Many attempts to land spies and radio equipment by U-Boat ended disasterously, with one spy "Walter Simon" being captured 8 hours after landing. German spy "Herman Goetz" was on the run in Ireland for a long time, being sheltered in IRA safe houses, and tried to use his IRA contacts in Ireland to set up a meeting with the Blueshirts leader "Eoin O Duffy", because they were considered in Germany to be the Irish Fascist Party, without realising "O Duffy" was an arch enemy of the IRA. Such was the confusion over Irish Political affairs. "Goetz", shortly after landing here by parachute, even walked into a country Garda Station in his Luftwaffe flight suit and asked directions, and the Garda on duty didn't seem to notice what he was wearing!!

I think it's a likely scenario the Germans would have used the Invasion as a ruse to remove the British from Northern Ireland, and some sort of Puppet Government would have been set up. If the Germans had chosen "Eoin O Duffy" and the Blueshirts to run this government, then it's likely to have turned the IRA against them and mass arrests of IRA men and women would have followed. "O Duffy" was a ruthless man, and a self confessed admirer of Mussolini and Hitler. He would no doubt have been Ireland's "Vidkun Quisling". "Eoin O Duffy's" knowledge of known IRA figures was extensive, and I'd guess the IRA leadership would have been offered something to join the puppet government, or face the execution squads.

I doubt there would have been much objection from the Catholic Church over these killings, as they were known to be sympathetic to the Blueshirt movement, fearing the 'Godless Communists'

William Joyce AKA "Lord Haw Haw" was an Irishman who used to broadcast German Propaganda on the radio, during the war from Berlin. There were many reports of cheering in Irish pubs, especially in the West, where he was from, when he broadcast news about British Ships being sunk in the Atlantic during the war. I think many Irish people were happy to see Britain get a Bloody Nose from the Germans, but at the same time were uneasy about the implications of a full German victory.

"Sean Russell" died of natural causes, in a German U-Boat (U-65) en route to Ireland with Frank Ryan, on August 14th 1940, and was buried at sea 100 miles of the west coast, wrapped in a Swastika Flag. "Frank Ryan" returned to Germany in the same boat, and lived out his days there, dying in a Military Hospital of a stroke in 1944 or 45.

Pyr0

As odd as it may sound, it'd be interesting to see todays world if Hitler had of won the war, I'm not saying I wanted him too, but from a "what if" point of view, it'd be interesting.

Latchy

One skinny little Austrian sod = 60 million dead .How he even thought he could take on and win against the might of the world is astonishing .

The man was,putting it mildly mentaly disturbed .Only stalin exceeds him in causing millions of more deaths in ww2

Dinter

The Scientist wrote: »

If he ever did invade Ireland (which was planned) i like to think i would have joined the underground movement rather than joining the British Army.

In the lunatic's words:

"..a landing in Ireland can be attempted only if Ireland requests help. For the present our envoy [assumed to be Dr. Eduard Hempel of the German Legation] must ascertain whether De Valera desires support and whether he wishes to have his military equipment supplemented by captured British war material (guns and ammunition), which could be sent to him in independent ships. Ireland is important to the Commander in Chief, Air, [Göring (Goering in English)] as his base for attacks on the north-west ports of Britain, although weather conditions must be investigated. The occupation of Ireland might lead to the end of the war."

However the English invasion plans were not at invitation only. Plan W would mean British troops reoccupying Southern Ireland, whether they were asked or not!

As to the OP. No way!! Hitler and his regieme deserved to be smashed. It's just a pity they couldn't take Stalin out before they went!

Latchy

Patton wanted to go the whole hog and head off into russia after germany but politicians ruled against it so we got the cold war/berlin wall episode instead .The reality was both the russian and american military was ,for want of a better word '' undernourished' for such a fight if it had come about although, stalin had it seems more men in numbers than the americans /allies

Dinter

marcsignal wrote: »

William Joyce AKA "Lord Haw Haw" was an Irishman who used to broadcast German Propaganda on the radio, during the war from Berlin. There were many reports of cheering in Irish pubs, especially in the West, where he was from, when he broadcast news about British Ships being sunk in the Atlantic during the war.

It's funny how he was executed for treason for almost exactly the same reasons why De Valera was not!!

What's even funnier is that at the end of the war he was an Irish citizen from the Republic but was not afforded any protection under that.

Odd how things work out. The IRA tried to execute him as an English traitor in the Twenties and then he's executed by the English in the 40's!!

Dinter

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

If you think that the English were harsh during their occupation of Ireland, it literally pales in comparison to the methods used by the German army to combat partisans and insurgents in occupied Europe.

If you think that the German army were harsh in occupied Europe you should have seen the Crown over the last few hundred years in Ireland. During which a large part of the populatuion detested the occupation and did what they could to thwart it.

I don't think you're give the average Irish citizen the credit they deserve.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I sincerely doubt that an underground movement would last long in Ireland with random execution of civilians en masse - the legacy of the war of independence and civil war would probably accelerate a demand for peace rather then one for resistance.

It lasted long enough when faced with the exact same circumstances.

Sure it's all academic. I don't think we'd have ever seen an invasion. It would be completely unnecessary if the Germans controlled the rest of Europe.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Hitler did not just kill 6 million Jews and undesirables. . .

+1

Lockstep

Dinter wrote: »

If you think that the German army were harsh in occupied Europe you should have seen the Crown over the last few hundred years in Ireland. During which a large part of the populatuion detested the occupation and did what they could to thwart it.

I don't think you're give the average Irish citizen the credit they deserve.

I disagree.
The British was more an attempt at subjugation. Totally different from Hitler's policy of extermination of those he viewed as undesirable. The British tended to leave people alone unless they suspected they were subversive. The Nazis would exterminate anyone who didn;t fit in with their ideology.

Dinter wrote: »

It lasted long enough when faced with the exact same circumstances.

Sure it's all academic. I don't think we'd have ever seen an invasion. It would be completely unnecessary if the Germans controlled the rest of Europe.

They were hardly the same circumstances. Regardless of your views of Britian, it was still a democracy and in recent times, had a press system. Regardless of how unpopular something was, there were often people who reported it (such as the reporting of British treatment of it's troops in the Crimea)

Nazi Germany, as a totalitarian state with no freedom of press could operate a system of reprisal (for example, the NAzis exterminated towns
as reprisals for the execution of Nazis, using the massacre at Lidice for the assassination of Reinhard Heidrich as an example)

Britain was unable to get away with the same things. Sure it commited atrocities, but it was never able to directly target innocent civilians in the way the nazis were able to.

humberklog

Dinter wrote: »

Sure it's all academic. I don't think we'd have ever seen an invasion. It would be completely unnecessary if the Germans controlled the rest of Europe.



+1

I think you're seriously under-estimating fascist germany's appetite and the destruction and annihilation required to please it.