What would have happened if the Nazi's had won?

EarlERizer

Anyone else remember this?


The European Commission has just announced that English will be the official
language of the European Union. German, which was the other possibility, narrowly missed out.

During negotiations, the British Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and accepted a 5-year phase-in plan that would
become known as "Euro-English".

In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly this will make
sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favor of "k".
This should klear
up konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the
troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like
fotograf 20% shorter.
In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to
reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments
will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a
deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the
silent "e" in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away.

By the 4th yer pepl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with
"z"
and "w" with "v".

During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining
"ou"
and after zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no
mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech oza.
Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru.

Und after zis fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German; lik zey vunted in ze
forst plas.



p.s.
I miss Farce136 ,was enjoying his enlightened rubbish............how come noone mentioned the reigning German Monarch of his?

crash davis

We'd probably have no Palestinian/Israeli conflict, right?

psychward

crash davis wrote: »

We'd probably have no Palestinian/Israeli conflict, right?

We would probably have some different yet similar kind of conflicts between German settlers and the indigenous peoples displaced for lebensraum unless they were all totally wiped out.

Latchy

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Thankfully the good guys won but.....

Back then yes ...but fcuk knows who the good guys really are now , like millions of soldiers and civillians died back then in WW2 so the bankers of the western world could fcuk the world over again in the 2000 decade ? By this reason , black is white and white is black .

crash davis

psychward wrote: »

We would probably have some different yet similar kind of conflicts between German settlers and the indigenous peoples displaced for lebensraum unless they were all totally wiped out.

I don't think we would in Europe or Asia. Depends on the rest of the world. Interesting question though.

Thank God it's not a reality!

stoneill

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Thankfully the good guys won but.....

We'd have one less conflict in the middle east I'm guessing but what else would have happened?

What would have happened to Ireland?

All official uniforms would be very cool!

DEFTLEFTHAND

Democracy would be dead and that might be a good thing.

TomBeckett

The_Thing wrote: »

Padraig Nally would have been awarded the civilian equivalent of the Iron Cross.

OOh if only!! If the germans had won surly they would have got rid of our terrible Knacker infestation... think of how much money that would save the taxpayer is social welfare handouts to these usless people that are crippling the country... at least then the money saved could be put to something good like a better health service...!!!

marienbad

Force136 wrote: »

I think the Germans tried to fly over here to cause some trouble. How did that work out for them?

The battle of Britain. Fought in the skies, won by British innovation and sheer bravery.

God I love this country.


If the world didn't have separate states and separate identities, we would all still be unofficially 'British'. Because it just seems to fit humanity. We just seem to be what humanity was supposed to be.

with quite a few Polish Czech and Free French pilots , strange they don't make your list of favourite nations

Ellis Dee

tiger55 wrote: »

Russia was massing for an attack on Germany, it is just that Germany got the first blow in. Why do you think they captured so many prisoners in the first few months of the war in the east.

Regarding Dunkirk...Hitler let them go as a good will gesture to try to make peace. There was two German generals that suggested to Hitler that they simply kill the lot at Dunkirk, but these two were sacked and kicked out of their houses.

One last thing, Russia was plundering tiny Finland, and the only country that helped Finland was Germany, the Western allies did nothing. Russia have to this very day still got their stolen land from Finland, look up lake Ladogo.

Rather a novel re-interpretation of history. However, I'll deal only with the bit about Finland, which is the most absurd::)

Finland was a democratic neutral country and had a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union. In August 1939, under a secret additional protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Germany and the Soviet Union carved up eastern Europe into spheres of interest, with Finland (along with Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and nearly half of Poland) assigned to the Soviets. The Soviet Union attacked Finland on 30 November 1939, without a declaration of war and with Germany's complete approval. Stalin expected his forces to be in Helsinki within a week; they never got there.

The mauling that the Red Army suffered at the Finns' hands (a quarter of a million killed in 105 days) was probably a major factor in Hitler's underestimation of the Soviet Union. His mistake was not to see that the Soviets learned quickly from the bitter lesson that the Finns taught them and were better prepared by the time Germany attacked them in June 1941.


By the way, the big lake is called Ladoga, or Laatokka in Finnish.:rolleyes:

Freddie59

Ellis Dee wrote: »

The mauling that the Red Army suffered at the Finns' hands (a quarter of a million killed in 105 days) was probably a major factor in Hitler's underestimation of the Soviet Union. His mistake was not to see that the Soviets learned quickly from the bitter lesson that the Finns taught them and were better prepared by the time Germany attacked them in June 1941.

Indeed. But the Germans still gave them some hammering in 1941, ending up only 100Km away from Moscow in the process. Then, as usual, Hitler ignored the advice of his generals, taking command, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Capt'n Midnight

Haelium wrote: »

Our Army would have a cooler uniform.

We used the best helmets we could get at the start of the war.

Eric Cartman

Trains being 'on time' wouldnt be classed as being less than 10 minutes late

Capt'n Midnight

If the Nazi's had won we'd have a lot more of this


A more realistic question would be

If D-Day had gone horribly wrong, where would the Russians have stopped ?

Remember that at that point the Western Allies had only just got half way up Italy, and the Russians weren't too happy about the result of the Spanish Civil war.

Fishooks12

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If the Nazi's had won we'd have a lot more of this

Remember that at that point the Western Allies had only just got half way up Italy, and the Russians weren't too happy about the result of the Spanish Civil war.

The turning of the war on the East was largely down to the allies opening another front in France so I'm not sure the Russians would have been quiet as successful

44leto

We would have all been spending a Deuchmark based currency and bending to the whim of the German government.

I always think these discussions moronic, what if the Nazis won, what if the Russian revolution failed, what if the Spanish armada succeeded in defeating Elizabeth 1. In truth we will never know, it is like trying to predict the future, there are always the unforeseen. Just like trying to predict another timeline.

If the Nazis won and they very well could have, it just would have been an unknown. But you can be certain there would have been less Jews, Slavs and yes Irish in the world, but you could not even be certain of that.

So OP to answer your question,,ITS UNKNOWN and it will always be that way.

tallaghtmick

Technology would probably be more advanced and also people in Ireland would praise the Polish.

chopperbyrne

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If D-Day had gone horribly wrong, where would the Russians have stopped?

Stalin would have tried to conquer Europe himself, with his tesla coils and iron curtain!

Cú Giobach

Fishooks12 wrote: »

The turning of the war on the East was largely down to the allies opening another front in France so I'm not sure the Russians would have been quiet as successful

The tide really turned at Stalingrad in the winter of '42/3, D-Day wasn't till '44, even Sicily wasn't invaded till the summer of '43.

gbee

Higgins would have been made President. :P

Pherekydes

Fishooks12 wrote: »

The turning of the war on the East was largely down to the allies opening another front in France so I'm not sure the Russians would have been quiet as successful

The battle of Stalingrad concluded in January 1943. The battle of Kursk took place in July 1943, well before the Allies even invaded Italy, let alone France. After Kursk, Germany was going down, with or without the Western Allies' help.

cock robin

Force136 wrote: »

I was going to say Ireland would have then been full of Nazis.

But you guys invited them in anyway.

Thankfully we defeated them, no thanks to Ireland.

Good to get an American perspective on the debate.

jam_mac_jam

crash davis wrote: »

We'd probably have no Palestinian/Israeli conflict, right?

Well the jews would all be dead so no.

jam_mac_jam

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Trains being 'on time' wouldnt be classed as being less than 10 minutes late

I think the trains would be the least of our concerns. Why is everyone obsessed with the trains being on time. There woudlnt be any trains the place would be a wasteland, do you think the Nazis would be investing in a tiny country on the edge of Europe. we would be fecked.

St.Spodo

The Soviet Union had greater means to control its satellite countries than Nazi Germany did, and that collapsed 45 years after the war. The policy of lebensraum probably would've kept them in a perpetual state of war with Soviet guerilla fighters, and the United States and Germany would've had a sort of Cold War rivalry. Nazi Germany would probably have collapsed under the weight of uprisings all over Europe from people who abhorred their policies. It would've been a mess.

HugoBradyBrown

If the Germans had won, we wouldn't be conversing openly like this, if we were here at all.

(Incidentally, why do people talk about the Nazis fighting the war? In general terms we don't use the governing party names when referring to the Japanese, the Soviet Union, the Italians, the Romanians and so forth. The belligerent enemy in 1939-45 were the Germans, not the Nazis.)

Killer Pigeon

St.Spodo wrote: »

The Soviet Union had greater means to control its satellite countries than Nazi Germany did, and that collapsed 45 years after the war. The policy of lebensraum probably would've kept them in a perpetual state of war with Soviet guerilla fighters, and the United States and Germany would've had a sort of Cold War rivalry. Nazi Germany would probably have collapsed under the weight of uprisings all over Europe from people who abhorred their policies. It would've been a mess.

Sounds like that movie "Fatherland".

Son Of A Vidic

Cú Giobach wrote: »

The tide really turned at Stalingrad in the winter of '42/3, D-Day wasn't till '44, even Sicily wasn't invaded till the summer of '43.

Indeed and after the mammoth Battle of Kursk (Operation Citadel) the tide turned completely, with German forces moving onto the defensive on the Eastern Front for the reminder of the war.

wtgorilla

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Thankfully the good guys won but.....

We'd have one less conflict in the middle east I'm guessing but what else would have happened?

What would have happened to Ireland?[/QUOTE]

Kill the Welsh. Pure and simple. But the Welsh don't realise that.

Mike 1972

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I think the trains would be the least of our concerns. Why is everyone obsessed with the trains being on time.

Because they cant wait to see those wonderful camps someplace out East ?

ejmaztec

After moaning about 66 years of oppression, a small group of people would be attacking the main Reichs Poste office in Dublin about now.

Eramen

Wattle wrote: »

There was no need for Hitler to invade. 66 years later Germany owns us.

Germany owns us? Hmm, do Germans even 'own' Germany? No.

Capt'n Midnight

Fishooks12 wrote: »

The turning of the war on the East was largely down to the allies opening another front in France so I'm not sure the Russians would have been quiet as successful

Napoleon took Moscow on September 14, 1812.
On March 31 1814 Tsar Alexander I entered Paris with his army.

The 6th Panzer Division was held up for a day by ONE Russian tank. A KV-1 IIRC, but the T34's came as an awful shock to them too.


Here's a table of how where the German army was deployed.
22 divisions sent to Italy in 1944, only 14 more sent to France.
Even in 1944 Second and Third fronts combined had less than half the troops on the Eastern Front and Balkans.

Country 1941 1942 1943 1944
USSR 34 171 179 157
France, Belgium & Holland 38 27 42 56
Norway & Finland 13 16 16 16
Balkans 7 8 17 20
Italy 0 0 0 22
Denmark 1 1 2 3
North Africa 2 3 0 0

Have a dig up of the casualty figures
The Brits lost maybe 30,000 killed after DDay.
US Army had 135,034 millitary deaths in Europe and another 35,377 in the Med.

The battle for Berlin alone resulted in about 100,000 German military deaths.

It's also interesting to note the number of Prisoners taken something like three times as many by the Allies than the Russians, it gives some level of indication of the seriousness of the fighting,

The war between Russia and Germany was treated as a war for survival by both, so there was no chance of cease fire.
80% of Soviet males born in 1923 didn't survive WWII

Zebra3

44leto wrote: »

The Nazis did have there good points, there uniforms were cool.

Hugo Boss ftw!

jetsonx

If the Nazi's got a grip in power, Fianna Fail would have supported them as it was an opportunity to make quick cash.

Watch this fascinating documentary about how Fianna Fail embraced former SS officers into their party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6K4hQcwY20

LordSutch

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

(Incidentally, why do people talk about the Nazis fighting the war? In general terms we don't use the governing party names when referring to the Japanese, the Soviet Union, the Italians, the Romanians and so forth. The belligerent enemy in 1939-45 were the Germans, not the Nazis.)

I beg to disagree, for it was the Nazi's who drove the war machine 39'-45', and the Nazi ideology which strove for total world domination! Many a good German was conscripted into the Nazi war effort, with no get out clause. You can blame the Nazi's (and specifically Adolf Hitler) for World War II, but do not tar the good German people with the same brush :mad:

Screaming Lord Sutch.

---

Screaming Lord Sutch.

HugoBradyBrown

LordSutch wrote: »

I beg to disagree, for it was the Nazi's who drove the war machine 39'-45', and the Nazi ideology which strove for total world domination! Many a good German was conscripted into the Nazi war effort, with no get out clause. You can blame the Nazi's (and specifically Adolf Hitler) for World War II, but do not tar the good German people with the same brush :mad:

Screaming Lord Sutch.

---

Screaming Lord Sutch.

Frankly, I disagree.

The German electorate knew what the NSDAP was, from the murders committed by their members, from the manifold other criminal actions of their members, from their speeches and rhetoric, from the writings of the party leader and of others, from their party press, from their assaults on political opponents, from their breaking up meetings of democratic parties, from their paramilitary activity and demeanour. Notwithstanding this, they gave a huge vote to the NSADP in the early years of the 1930's, both in Prussia and in Germany as a whole.

Even accepting that the electorate did not know what they were doing (and I cannot accept that), the conservative political establishment then rallied around Mr Hitler and ensured his election as Chancellor. They knew, even if the German people as a whole did not.

Consequently, the NSDAP became the legitimated government of Germany. The German people did not resist the NSDAP in its internal criminality; they did not undermine the party; they did not organise a revolution. They and the German armed forces simply followed orders, with varying degrees of enthusiasm.

Consequently, however unpalatable it may be for people today, the enemy that the United Nations fought in the war was Germany, plus its gaggle of supporters. In the case of Britain, Chamberlain's radio address in 1939 said " ... this country is at war with Germany"; he did not say " ... this country is at war with the NSDAP", nor did he say "... this country is at war with the Nazi party". I rather think he would have known his enemy.

In Ireland, Mr de Valera, to give one instance, always made clear that the belligerents who composed the Axis powers included 'Germany', not the NSDAP.

In general terms, the view that an entire population were the innocent hostages of a minuscule depravedly criminal NSDAP does not bear any analysis. Obviously former Nazi party members, supporters, 'sneaking regarders' and passive tolerators proved to be as rare as hens' teeth in the latter months of 1945 and later, but this too is no reliable guide to the truth. Throughout the 1930's and 1940's, this group of supporters of differing degrees of commitment and intensity formed a large majority of the German population, as archival work, coupled with statistical analysis, has demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever.

peasant

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

they gave a huge vote to the NSADP

33% to be precise.

Not small by any standard, but huge it aint.

It is just that the Weimar Republic had so many fragmented parties and no minimum percentage rule that those 33% made them the largest force in parliament, which they subsequently utilised to eliminate the parliament altogether.

el oh el

Siuin wrote: »

Oooh well in that case I must be a super Jew expert seeing as how I've been twice

I lived there for some time, what am I then?! :eek:

Edit: By the way, don't know if it has been mentioned yet, but there's a movie called Fatherland about what Europe could have looked like if the Nazis had won:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaFxd8K8PpM

HugoBradyBrown

peasant wrote: »

33% to be precise.

Not small by any standard, but huge it aint.

It is just that the Weimar Republic had so many fragmented parties and no minimum percentage rule that those 33% made them the largest force in parliament, which they subsequently utilised to eliminate the parliament altogether.

33% has given democratic governments overall majorities in first-past-the-post systems.

And who joined the NSDAP in the Reichstag in electing Mr Hitler as Chancellor, democratically? This rather bulks up the figures for democratic legitimation of the NSDAP.

ejmaztec

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

Frankly, I disagree.

The German electorate knew what the NSDAP was, from the murders committed by their members, from the manifold other criminal actions of their members, from their speeches and rhetoric, from the writings of the party leader and of others, from their party press, from their assaults on political opponents, from their breaking up meetings of democratic parties, from their paramilitary activity and demeanour. Notwithstanding this, they gave a huge vote to the NSADP in the early years of the 1930's, both in Prussia and in Germany as a whole.

Even accepting that the electorate did not know what they were doing (and I cannot accept that), the conservative political establishment then rallied around Mr Hitler and ensured his election as Chancellor. They knew, even if the German people as a whole did not.

Consequently, the NSDAP became the legitimated government of Germany. The German people did not resist the NSDAP in its internal criminality; they did not undermine the party; they did not organise a revolution. They and the German armed forces simply followed orders, with varying degrees of enthusiasm.

Consequently, however unpalatable it may be for people today, the enemy that the United Nations fought in the war was Germany, plus its gaggle of supporters. In the case of Britain, Chamberlain's radio address in 1939 said " ... this country is at war with Germany"; he did not say " ... this country is at war with the NSDAP", nor did he say "... this country is at war with the Nazi party". I rather think he would have known his enemy.

In Ireland, Mr de Valera, to give one instance, always made clear that the belligerents who composed the Axis powers included 'Germany', not the NSDAP.

In general terms, the view that an entire population were the innocent hostages of a minuscule depravedly criminal NSDAP does not bear any analysis. Obviously former Nazi party members, supporters, 'sneaking regarders' and passive tolerators proved to be as rare as hens' teeth in the latter months of 1945 and later, but this too is no reliable guide to the truth. Throughout the 1930's and 1940's, this group of supporters of differing degrees of commitment and intensity formed a large majority of the German population, as archival work, coupled with statistical analysis, has demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever.

It's easier to generalise with the description "Nazis", because they weren't all German, some being Hungarian, Bulgarian, Romanian etc.

lar203

I wonder would it have been better for us

HugoBradyBrown

ejmaztec wrote: »

It's easier to generalise with the description "Nazis", because they weren't all German, some being Hungarian, Bulgarian, Romanian etc.

Yes, that is a good point: there were people with no political or personal moral standards in those countries too.

However, it was Germany which started the war, with the unprovoked attack on innocent and peaceful Poland; the German armed forces, not any NSDAP militia or party members, under the command of the legitimate German government were the aggressors.

ejmaztec

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

Yes, that is a good point: there were people with no political or personal moral standards in those countries too.

However, it was Germany which started the war, with the unprovoked attack on innocent and peaceful Poland; the German armed forces, not any NSDAP militia or party members, under the command of the legitimate German government were the aggressors.

Naturally it was solely Germany to start with, but things changed with the expansion of the international fanbase.

I wouldn't say that the Poles were 100% innocent, because they did give Hitler a bit of an excuse, in that they didn't treat the ethnic Germans very well. These of course had been left behind in what had been German territory pre WW1.

HugoBradyBrown

ejmaztec wrote: »

Naturally it was solely Germany to start with, but things changed with the expansion of the international fanbase.

I wouldn't say that the Poles were 100% innocent, because they did give Hitler a bit of an excuse, in that they didn't treat the ethnic Germans very well. These of course had been left behind in what had been German territory pre WW1.

Poland was a sovereign member of the international community, violated without provocation by a cruel aggressor. That was why France and Britain flew to her aid in her hour of need.

Capt'n Midnight

ejmaztec wrote: »

Naturally it was solely Germany to start with, but things changed with the expansion of the international fanbase.

I wouldn't say that the Poles were 100% innocent, because they did give Hitler a bit of an excuse, in that they didn't treat the ethnic Germans very well. These of course had been left behind in what had been German territory pre WW1.

None of the dictatorships were treating ethnic minorities well.

Oddly enough HG wells in a tale of things to come had Poland attacking Germany and China gassing Japan.

Capt'n Midnight

el oh el wrote: »

Edit: By the way, don't know if it has been mentioned yet, but there's a movie called Fatherland about what Europe could have looked like if the Nazis had won:

The book gives a better indication as it gives more background.

HugoBradyBrown

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

None of the dictatorships were treating ethnic minorities well.

Oddly enough HG wells in a tale of things to come had Poland attacking Germany and China gassing Japan.

I would recommend Stephan M. Horak Eastern European National Minorities 1919-1980: A Handbook, Littleton CO: Libraries Unlimited, 1985, for a very good survey of national treatment of minorities.

For Germany and Poland in the days surrounding the outbreak of hostilities, a fine insight can be gleaned from the novel:

Bienek, Horst, The First Polka, (English translation), London: Gollancz, 1978 (trans. Ralph A. Read).

Joey the lips

sprechen sie deutsch?

HugoBradyBrown

Joey the lips wrote: »

sprechen sie deutsch?

Mój polski jest lepszy.