[dmn22]

Originally Posted by V8 Interceptor

If they were why did the Nazis hate them?

Could be wrong here but was it not because they were seen as wealthy during a time when the average German did not have a lot of money?

Hitler then orchestrated an effective messaging campaign blaming them for various things that were going wrong within the country.

I may be wrong here however and am happy to be corrected my the more knowledgeable people in this thread

[Conall Cernach]

The order to halt the panzers before Dunkirk ensured that the British could evacuate 300,000 odd troops and gain a valuable morale boost just when they were on the ropes. If the Germans had captured those troops the Brits may have sued for some sort of peace settlement meaning that Hitler would not have been distracted by operation Sealion and various other campaigns and could have the full might of his army focused on Barbarossa.

[Samsonsmasher]

Originally Posted by V8 Interceptor

If they were why did the Nazis hate them?

They wanted a pure Germany with 100% Aryans at the top. I remember reading in Stephen A Ambrose's book "D-Day" that a commando who went ashore that day was a former nember of the Waffen SS. When the Nazis found out after some digging that he and his family were of Jewish descent they all went to the gas chambers. He escaped and fought for the Allies.

[E mac]

Originally Posted by Das Reich

No. England and France were doing problems since the Saarland went back to Germany.

Nazi policy pre 1938 was ideally an alliance with Britain. The Germans aspired to having a "British empire of their own" so propaganda at that time praised the British.

[Das Reich]

Originally Posted by E mac

Nazi policy pre 1938 was ideally an alliance with Britain. The Germans aspired to having a "British empire of their own" so propaganda at that time praised the British.

More likely an alliance with Soviet Union, they even sent soldiers there to be trained when Germany couldn't have motorized army (before 1935) and airplanes.

[1874]

Originally Posted by Samsonsmasher

That's for another thread lol. I am solely interested in possible outcomes from that famous showdown between Halifax and Churchill.
Being a WW2 nerd in the extreme I think that is the moment when History changed.

I was always the opinion that the turning point in the war was around the first military defeats of the Wehrmacht in North Africa, so what led to that essentially led to the overall defeat of Germany.


The fact that Barbarossa had already started prevented an overall victory in North Africa, and because Hitlers goal was always in the East, before they secured other areas, half hearted and piecemeal efforts made in North Africa that werent followed through or in the BAtlle of Britain where they couldnt follow through were wasted, that always left them vulnerable to being attacked and having to go on the defensive.


Once as was said the Soviet house of cards didnt collapse, didnt necessarily mean the Soviets werent on the verge of imminent defeat, it was a close run thing and the Soviets themselves suffered manpower shortages, possibly partly becuase they wastefully threw men into the meatgrinder, but only just because they did it more, doesnt mean the Germans werent at it either. By not securing the Mediterranean and North Africa any loss of men and equipment taking ground was a complete waste if they werent going to finish the job.
It seems ideology and urgency to deal with what was always in Hitlers mind, which was to attack Soviet Russia.
If the effort and resources expended on the battle of Britain (and certainly Barbarossa) had been focused on North Africa and Malta I think this would have had a more significant effect than facing off with Mainland Britain which could be seen as an all or nothing battle of survival for their existence. The Germans never had the ability to follow it up with a seaborne invasion, but they could have tied up British resources by making attacks on airfields/ports and potentially forcing the RN to operate more defensively.


Cutting the suez canal and their access to the rest of the Empire and oil in the middle east to Great Britain would have had a greater affect on any war with them without directly making it a war of survival for the British which was put that way to help turn American public opinion.
While still being involved in agreement with the Soviets, Germany could have gotten more results by supporting and cooperating with the Italians, who had manpower and a large Navy into defeating the RN and British forces in that region.
This would have staved off the requirement for an urgency to reach the Caucasus for oil in Barbarossa, but still have placed it in easier reach to remove it from Russia prior to any later invasion.
With Britain out of any war or so weakened and isolated to their mainland, submarine warfare could have reduced any further capacity to fight, assuming they had not already sued for peace.



So in my opinion, regardless of the British deciding to fight on and Churchill having succeeded in remaining, it could still have been possible to defeat them prior to the US becoming involved and before attacking Soviet Russia.

No all out Battle of ideology in attacking Britain where they could show themselves in an underdog light protecting some candle of democracy, which the German forces couldnt follow through on, but rather cutting the British link to their colonies and an attack on their link away from her home territory , that could have been achieved and access to oil by fighting and defeating them in North Africa and the Mediterranean, which would have been easier and risked less than an all out attack on Soviet Russia, but which still provided them with certain materials and resources they needed, ie the Russians were providing the Germans with materiale before Barbarossa, and they could have accessed their oil requirements from the Middle east. Disincentivizing
The Japanese from attacking the US, which also revolved around an urgency to have unaffected access to oil resources, by encouraging them in securing the Indian Ocean, further breaking the link between Great Britain and Aus/NZ.
With India left to India and British forces there with no support, as a colony, it would have ended, The Japanese sphere of influence cold have been up to South East Asia, they could have focused on theri war against China, rather than fighting a technologically superior foe, again ideology hamstrung them as much as the Germans.

A later Barbarossa not focusing on Juggling Army group resources such as tanks and the time wasted in that and as someone said gaining support in both potentially Allied and Conquered territories that were opposed to the Soviets (from Finland, the Baltics and Ukraine), even from withing Russia itself could have finished off The Soviet Union in shorter order, again the option offered to the Defenders was too limited to leave them any option but to fight for their survival.
The Soviets could have been weakened prior to that by having a potential Japanese threat in the East and German forces near their borders south of the Caucasus's.
Really having ideology as a primary objective instead of real military and practical considerations in a war undermines the side with those as objectives.
Its wasteful of resources and divides and diminishes your own forces.

Originally Posted by Conall Cernach

The order to halt the panzers before Dunkirk ensured that the British could evacuate 300,000 odd troops and gain a valuable morale boost just when they were on the ropes. If the Germans had captured those troops the Brits may have sued for some sort of peace settlement meaning that Hitler would not have been distracted by operation Sealion and various other campaigns and could have the full might of his army focused on Barbarossa.

I think its likely that a defeat that captured those men, would have put Britain out of any further war, it would have been an over whelming thing for the BEF to be defeated and captured, for the population, rather than just defeated and escaped, the Germans could have operated from a position of authority in peacefully removing the UK and even have them support and feed the German BEF captives, Im not sure if the Germans had the capacity to feed them, its possible they may even have gained many of the ordinary soldiers as Allies (although probably mostly unlikely), because the British didnt treat those same ordinary men from the same classes any better themselves between the Wars back home.

Originally Posted by Das Reich

More likely an alliance with Soviet Union, they even sent soldiers there to be trained when Germany couldn't have motorized army (before 1935) and airplanes.

I think this was more out of a requirement to train and test equipment in secrecy than any want or need to be allied to them.

[Harika]

The underbelly theory, that Germany could have won by focusing more resources on the north Africa campaign, has one problem. Germany had only access to the port in Tobruk and had trouble to sustain it's existing army and often relied on capturing British resources to advance further. Egypt was neutral and to take a detour through turkey would have been far too long.

[1874]

Originally Posted by Harika

The underbelly theory, that Germany could have won by focusing more resources on the north Africa campaign, has one problem. Germany had only access to the port in Tobruk and had trouble to sustain it's existing army and often relied on capturing British resources to advance further. Egypt was neutral and to take a detour through turkey would have been far too long.

With the British out of the Med, the ports available could have been sufficient, until Egypt was taken,

as for Egypt's neutrality, I dont think bypassing it for anyone was a consideration, the British were already there, previously neutral countries had not concerned any Major players, not the British in Egypt, nor in Norway where they were planning to occupy or elsewhere, (and likewise the Germans elsewhere) Holland, Belgium, Denmark.

[Samsonsmasher]

Originally Posted by Harika

The underbelly theory, that Germany could have won by focusing more resources on the north Africa campaign, has one problem. Germany had only access to the port in Tobruk and had trouble to sustain it's existing army and often relied on capturing British resources to advance further. Egypt was neutral and to take a detour through turkey would have been far too long.

If Halifax was PM the British would have concluded a peace treaty with Hitler and no war in the Middle East would have broken out. Obviously the British would have to have made humiliating concessions but they would have kept their Empire just as the French did after 1940. Hitler could concentrate on conquering European Russia in 1941 with no distractions.
Again the Nazis could only have won in 1941 if they captured Moscow decapitating the Soviet system and also capturing the Caucasus oil fields. Without Britain as a springboard to stage a landing in France the Americans could not have been able to intervene in Europe. Also with Britain throwing in the towel Franco's Spain and also Portugal would have agreed to co operate and German bases would probably have been established on their Western shores. Gibraltar and Suez would be in Nazi hands and the British Italian and French fleets would be part of a military alliance with the Reich to blockade the Soviet Union.

[J Mysterio]

Originally Posted by E mac

How much of an asset were Italy to Germany? Again I think Hitler put too much faith in an Italian army which was low on modern mechanisation and still relied on the humble horse. Fair enough Italy took control in Greece /Mediterranean but it was fleeting. Japan was too far away to be of any help to Germany in Europe if say geographically Japan was an island in Europe then god help us...

Italy didn't take control in Greece though, and the Germans had to come in and do the job for them. The Italians were a liability to Hitler. They couldn't take Greece with superior manpower - a complete failure really.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Italian_War

[jackboy]

Capturing the brits at Dunkirk could have knocked them out of the war. If that didn’t work the Germans could have quickly captured Gibraltar, which would have probably left the brits unable to hold on in North Africa.

Russia was just too big. Maintaining a strong defence and using politics, that regime would have imploded eventually. Just needed patience that Hitler was not capable of.

Declaring war on the US. Someone should have just put a bullet in his head when he came out with that idea.

The truth is, even if someone sent Hitler back a history book from the future, he would have messed things up. Extreme overwhelming aggression was his go to tactic every time which is a massive waste of resources.

[McHardcore]

Originally Posted by magicbastarder

Isn't there an argument that if Hitler had not hated the Jews, he'd have had the Bomb first because multiple Jewish physicists wouldn't have fled?

Yes, losing the physicists was a big loss to Germany. Germany also had a head-start on the research as Otto Hahn, Lise Meitner and Fritz Strassman first discovered nuclear fission in 1938. Werner Heisenberg calculated that a bomb could be possible by 1939. Also, the cost of the development wasn't beyond the possibility of what Germany could do, as they spent more on the V2 project than the Allies spent on the Manhattan Nuclear bomb project.

There are a few things that would have been very difficult for Germany to overcome. One was that nearly all the world's sources of uranium 235 were in the Belgian Congo and lesser quality sources in Canada and the US. These were all under the Allies control. Secondly, they would require fields of enrichment plants that would be easy targets for allies bombs.

Lastly, as others here have pointed out, the leaders never really tried to develop it.

[Harika]

Some other options:
Germany waited until 1943 to fully move their economy to wartime economy. UK did this 1941 already.
The blitz wasted hundreds of the best German pilots. Either killed or if shutdown over UK then out of the war.
UK had not this problem, even had penicillin to cure quicker.
The saying goes that WW2 was won by russian blood, US steel and UK intelligence.
Even with UK out of the war, Barbarossa was doomed to fail. Let's assume Germany encircling Moscow, definitely not a rollover with hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers defending, German supply lines extended beyond sustainable and with the Japanese attack on pearl harbor, millions of Russian soldiers in winter gear available from the east ready to smash the encirclement.
Could the Japanese attack wait? They thought it's their only way to keep the US long enough out of the war. Their blockade of oil hurt them

[saabsaab]

Russian spies found out that Japan did not intend to attack the USSR unless Moscow fell first. This allowed the Russians to divert troops to the defense of Moscow from further east. Also if the British were not in the fight then no convoys to the USSR with essential materials this would have led to Russian defeat. As it was it was close enough.

[tabbey]

Originally Posted by Harika

The saying goes that WW2 was won by russian blood, US steel and UK intelligence.

This is it in a nutshell.

Germany could have defeated Russia and acquired living space in eastern Europe. Alternatively Germany could have honoured Hitler's deal with Stalin and retained control of France and neighbouring countries.

They could not win on three fronts.

By invading western Europe, and antagonising Britain, meant sooner or later, America would enter the war, and no matter how long it took, Germany would be defeated by the combination of American equipment and supplies, and russian lives.