65 years on if Nazi Germany ruled earth?
Discussion
Captain Flashman said:
This is an interesting question, in mein kampf hitler talks about england and her colonies, i didn't read it as overly hostile.
No, it wasn't, simply because when he wrote Mein Kampf he saw the British as Germany's natural ally, joined by royal blood going back centuries. It's worth pointing out that several Royals were privately supportive of Hitler (I know it's a Channel 5 documentary, but Britain's Nazi King was quite an eye-opener as regards Edward VIII), obviously he had a close ally in Oswald Moseley (supported quite openly by the Daily Mail, interesting to see their editorial policy hasn't really changed), and if it wasn't for Churchill, it's likely that the policy of appeasement would've continued.In Mein Kampf, Hitler saw the British rule over India as the 'perfect' example of how to successfully invade, subjugate and oppress a population, and outlined it as a model for his intended German colonies. It's impossible to know precisely what was said in the debating chamber between Hitler and Chamberlain, but I wouldn't be surprised if Chamberlain was charmed and flattered into supporting the notion that both he and Hitler would preside over these great empires for the betterment of mankind (bear in mind that no-one knew about the holocaust yet).
It's essential to get into a '20s/'30s mindset when considering the issues surrounding all this really, into a world where democracies were in a minority, mistrusted by many and seen as just one of a number of options. 'Macchiavellian' wasn't so much of an insult back then either, as Macchiavelli's idea of the 'benign dictator' being the perfect model of government (and thanks to Ancient Greece, that list included democracy) was something taken quite seriously and not interpreted as being at all hostile, even by successful democracies.
I do wonder, however, how much different the world would look if the Treaty of Versailles had been more along Woodrow Wilson's proposed lines. I doubt Germany would have slipped into chaos, Weimar wouldn't have failed quite so easily, and the second world war would probably have been Stalin versus the rest of the world.
That said, I do wonder whether racism would have been considered more socially acceptable had the holocaust never happened. Worth bearing that in mind.
Twincam16 said:
and if it wasn't for Churchill, it's likely that the policy of appeasement would've continued.
I do wonder, however, how much different the world would look if the Treaty of Versailles had been more along Woodrow Wilson's proposed lines....
If the RAF had embraced Frank Whittle in the 20's ...I do wonder, however, how much different the world would look if the Treaty of Versailles had been more along Woodrow Wilson's proposed lines....
More over Roosevelt though Churchill as being "needlessly obsessed with power politics, too rigidly anti-Soviet, too colonialist in his attitude to what is now called the Third World, and too little interested in building the fundamentally new international order towards which American idealism had always tended." ie 'building democracies along the American republic model.
But interestingly in 1982 Henry Kissinger noted "It is Churchill who was right, and Roosevelt, who was wrong, in these matters."
But II
It does go back to the treaty of Versailles - so as ever it's entirely the fault of the French.
Halb said:
I think the Nazis might have been closer than the history books traditionally say, did they have it in the same mould as the US, prolly not, but they had many varied ideas for bombs. The Americans the British and the Soviets were all in the exploit and deny mission to get and keep goodies from each other.
Yes they were quite advanced, and it was only really the fact that as the war progressed not in their favour, that, that potential threat thereby diminished.I have a feeling that, had AH used his brain rather than emotional rant driven logic, and moved on Russia immediately after the fall of France in 1940, and not wasted 12 months bothering about Britain, Germany would likely have defeated the Soviets and been in a stronger position in Europe. It's likely that a Cold-War like scenario would then have been played out for the following several decades but with the Atlantic being the natural divide bewteen two nuclear armed blocs, the USA and the Third Reich. Where, and what would have happened to GB is open to question and would have depended on lots of events paning out in different ways.
Twincam16 said:
It's worth pointing out that several Royals were privately supportive of Hitler (I know it's a Channel 5 documentary, but Britain's Nazi King was quite an eye-opener as regards Edward VIII), obviously he had a close ally in Oswald Moseley (supported quite openly by the Daily Mail, interesting to see their editorial policy hasn't really changed), and if it wasn't for Churchill, it's likely that the policy of appeasement would've continued.
Not just Edward, this is an excerpt from the kink I posted earlier."The Duke of Hamilton's diary records several meetings with the Duke of Kent during the early months of 1941. Elizabeth Byrd worked as a secretary for Hamilton's brother Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton. She claims he told her that the Duke of Hamilton took the "flak for the whole Hess affair in order to protect others even higher up the social scale". Byrd added that "he (Lord Malcolm) had strongly hinted that the cover-up was necessary to protect the reputations of members of the Royal Family"."
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWkentD.htm
aeropilot said:
Yes they were quite advanced, and it was only really the fact that as the war progressed not in their favour, that, that potential threat thereby diminished.
Have recently read some books that postulates on if the Germans had turned to their underground factories before the war instead of during the RAF/USAF bombing campaigns. Also been reading how Kammler had his own lil state within a state running with his 'skunkworks' and even Speer did not know everything that was being worked on thanks to the secrecy model.Edited by Halb on Friday 13th August 14:07
williamp said:
Interesting comment about "Germans meeting up with japan"
I know they were on the same side, but did they have anything in common?
Would they end up fighting themselves for overall honours?
Nazi alliances were based upon political and military expediency, not ideological acceptance of the Japanese as equal.I know they were on the same side, but did they have anything in common?
Would they end up fighting themselves for overall honours?
Militarily Germany and Japan needed each other.
The alliance was made possible only by some clever diplomacy.
The Ambassadors realised that according to Japanese mythology, the Japanese people are decended from a race of blonde and blue eyed people.
This was contrived to be accepted as 'proof' that the Japanese are Aryian. Thus allowing the alliance.
Uncle Fester said:
williamp said:
Interesting comment about "Germans meeting up with japan"
I know they were on the same side, but did they have anything in common?
Would they end up fighting themselves for overall honours?
Nazi alliances were based upon political and military expediency, not ideological acceptance of the Japanese as equal.I know they were on the same side, but did they have anything in common?
Would they end up fighting themselves for overall honours?
Militarily Germany and Japan needed each other.
The alliance was made possible only by some clever diplomacy.
The Ambassadors realised that according to Japanese mythology, the Japanese people are decended from a race of blonde and blue eyed people.
This was contrived to be accepted as 'proof' that the Japanese are Aryian. Thus allowing the alliance.
Thing is, the Nazis didn't even believe their own bulls
t. Goebbels would get 'archaeologists' to publically 'dig up' pre-buried bogus artefacts with rudimentary swastikas on them to 'prove' that it was all just part of Germany's 'historic destiny'.Plotloss said:
I do dislike the way that the word Aryan has become hijacked and misused.
It's original use was describe people of Persia.
And I'm not seeing a lot of blonde haired, blue eyed athletes in Iran to be fair.
Indeed - one of the classes I taught had an Iranian kid in it called Aryan - I understand he got a lot of schtick from his classmates in history lessons, poor lad.It's original use was describe people of Persia.
And I'm not seeing a lot of blonde haired, blue eyed athletes in Iran to be fair.
Twincam16 said:
Thing is, the Nazis didn't even believe their own bullst. Goebbels would get 'archaeologists' to publically 'dig up' pre-buried bogus artefacts with rudimentary swastikas on them to 'prove' that it was all just part of Germany's 'historic destiny'.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff