MOVED: Could Germany have won WWII if the Halocaust never Happened?

A news story about some of the secret behind-the-scenes work (signals intelligence and radio navigation) done by the Women’s Royal Canadian Naval Service (the Wrens) during WWII.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/d-day-code-breakers-women-1.5159789

Wise words, Worsham.

Like Model , he would have done very well in the halcyon days. I believe he would have done less well, defensively, unlike  Model, though. He would have worried his Army commander, like Guderian, never wanting to pause to regroup. But that would not have mattered to him or to the result.

Narvik wrote:

On top of that, the average and casual Italian at this point had a very low morale, since they by now knew that Italy would loose, even if the Axis won the war.

That statement rings false. Germany did not have plans to enslave Italy after the war. In his writings, Hitler pointed out that if a nation wants allies, it must establish a reputation for treating its allies well. It was a logical conclusion for the leader of any nation, and I have seen no evidence to suggest Hitler had deviated from that logic.

I agree Italian morale was low. There were several reasons for that.

Mussolini seized power through military means. His views were not necessarily representative of those of most Italians. Mussolini did not build a strong relationship with the Italian people after seizing office. He had no reason to rely on the Italian people to stick with him through thick and thin. Most Italians did not believe in Mussolini’s dream of a revived Roman Empire, and thought his foreign adventures were rather pointless. Italy was unprepared for war. It lacked a strong military culture and strong military traditions. Its army was not afforded the weapons which would have been necessary to destroy Britain’s Matilda tanks. Its military leadership was lacking. It’s hard to maintain high morale when it’s obvious that your opponent has a much better sense of what he’s doing than your own military has of what it’s doing.

Note that all four problems existed before Hitler came to power in Germany. It’s not as though Mussolini’s Italy had a great military tradition, which then collapsed once Hitler and Mussolini became allies. On the contrary: Italy’s military tradition and military preparedness were greatly lacking both before and after Hitler and Mussolini became allies.

A touching story. Thanks for sharing.

Then there is the other side of the war, the Pacific theater.  I don’t think any events in Europe regarding Hitler (or even Churchill) would have affected the decision by Japan to annex Manchuria in 1931, China proper (at least as much as they could get) in 1937, and then to attempt the quick strike at Pearl along with the dash to the oil-rich Dutch East Indies in 1941.

WWII, at least in the Pacific, was pretty much going to happen regardless of events in Europe.  Considering the culture of the Japanese (essentially controlled by the military leaders) at the time, I don’t think the change of any single person in Japan (even the emperor considering the Japanese military could and did replace emperors when convenient for them) could have altered this course.

Read “world war 2 behind closed doors” by laurence rees

There was a secret part in the treaty between the french, british and poles which the brits and the french promised military assistance against a German attack not a Soviet attack and remember they did not help in the war between the poles in the soviets in late 1910’s and early 1920’s but instead suggested the curzon line (which the Molotov-Ribbentrop line basicly followed)

Also the soviets at Tehran were more interested in soviet post war borders than they were in actually winning the war and remember in 1943 this was not a certainty. They wanted to keep there pre 1941 gains.

This is just a brief overview of some othe parts of the book I suggest you read it. It is very good.

The brits and the french could have attacked the siegfried line before the germans finished it and probably would have been succesful and because they did not co-operate with the Belgium people (I don’t know the correct word) and the dutch because the later two did not want to appear co-operating with the allies because at that time they were neutral. The Germans had a brilliant strategy in attacking (the aaa territory North West Europe) and then following nit up with the tank drive through the ardennes they cut of the Elite French and British troops from the rest of the army. They shouldn’t have allowed Dunkirk and should have forced the British and French into the sea and this would come back to haunt them.

The problem now adays is that people just don’t have the stomach for war like they used to.

The rule used to be, pre-1800, that either a city under attack surrendered and chose to raise the flag of the aggressor,  thereby not being seiged, raped, and pilliaged.

Or,

The city resisted, and you seiged it, raped, pilliaged, occupied, and raised your flag thier.

Lastly, whilst most empires expanded the rule aslo was if you wanted the land for yourself, you came in, killed everyone who had a claim to the territory, and took it as your own.

In modern terms however, we invade countires, briefly change their governments, piss everyone off who lives there, pay to rebuild their infrastructure, and then given the country back to the people we’ve made angry - after we’ve trained them to defend themselves.

I proclaim this thread Worthy.