NationStates Jolt Archive

If he had won? Supposing he didn't flub it up, took Russia and dropped his planned fission bomb on New York, got his greater German Reich and was a world power today, would he have been called a great man instead of the caricature of evil he is generally portrayed as?

I suspect most on this forum would, even those who are opposed to war in general.

Consider, Genghis Khan, an unarguable butcher who only brought misery and suffering to the people of every country he invaded. Much of the populace ended up as cannon fodder troops if they were men while the women were either sold into slavery or had worse happen to them. And that was if you surrendered to him right at the outset. The ones who resisted were butchered to the last man, woman and child. He made no excuses for that, in fact, had it chronicled as a great thing.

Yet most people on this forum who talk about him only mention things like how great his empire was, his tactics, or even how he was somehow an honorable and ethical man despite the fact that he would have likely made Hitler and even the Japanese in Nanjing puke with his outright brutality, the only thing you could rely on the man to deliver.

Why is that? Does victory make all the difference?

history is written by the winners. So yes.

Yes, because had he won, many if not all people who didn't laud him would be in concentration camps or dead.

If he had won? Supposing he didn't flub it up, took Russia and dropped his planned fission bomb on New York, got his greater German Reich and was a world power today, would he have been called a great man instead of the caricature of evil he is generally portrayed as?

I suspect most on this forum would, even those who are opposed to war in general.

Consider, Genghis Khan, an unarguable butcher who only brought misery and suffering to the people of every country he invaded. Much of the populace ended up as cannon fodder troops if they were men while the women were either sold into slavery or had worse happen to them. And that was if you surrendered to him right at the outset. The ones who resisted were butchered to the last man, woman and child. He made no excuses for that, in fact, had it chronicled as a great thing.

Yet most people on this forum who talk about him only mention things like how great his empire was, his tactics, or even how he was somehow an honorable and ethical man despite the fact that he would have likely made Hitler and even the Japanese in Nanjing puke with his outright brutality, the only thing you could rely on the man to deliver.

Why is that? Does victory make all the difference?
who would dare to dispute it?

who would dare to dispute it?

Yes, because had he won, many if not all people who didn't laud him would be in concentration camps or dead.

And 400 years down the line, when the Greater German Reich entropies to a former shell of itself, with no fear of retribution for not parroting the party line, when historical proof starts being unearthed, would people still laud him?

Seems to me he'd get the same treatment as Genghis. Glorification with all the brutality and horrors he committed swept under the rug.

history is written by the winners. So yes.

^ this. It's easy when you kill anyone that opposes you. However with that said could you imagine the amount of killing that would have happened after the end of hostilities?

who would dare to dispute it?

After he died people might have. Look at Mao Zedeng.

Hitler would indeed have been lauded - in the Reich and it's satellite states. But he would have been just as hated in the free West and East as Stalin is now - he may have had a nuke, but he had no capacity to take over the planet. The Cold War would have been between Capitalism and Fascism instead of Capitalism and Communism.

And 400 years down the line, when the Greater German Reich entropies to a former shell of itself, with no fear of retribution for not parroting the party line, when historical proof starts being unearthed, would people still laud him?

Seems to me he'd get the same treatment as Genghis. Glorification with all the brutality and horrors he committed swept under the rug.

Perhaps. I was assuming that, for the sake of the argument, that the Greater German Reich was still around.

And 400 years down the line, when the Greater German Reich entropies to a former shell of itself, with no fear of retribution for not parroting the party line, when historical proof starts being unearthed, would people still laud him?

Seems to me he'd get the same treatment as Genghis. Glorification with all the brutality and horrors he committed swept under the rug.
depends on what the rest of his legacy is.

napoleon did some bad things, julius caesar did some bad things, the kings and queens of medieval and renaissance europe did many many bad things. we still love them.

kinda.

Do you think the atrocities of Hitler would have been allowed to be discussed if he had succeeded? Genghis Khan was born of a different time, and a different place. The values were different. Had Hitler's atrocities come to light in any way, I doubt that the free world would have lauded him.

And just for the record, I have read more about Genghis Khan's sheer brutality and violence than about how great he was.

Hitler would indeed have been lauded - in the Reich and it's satellite states. But he would have been just as hated in the free West and East as Stalin is now - he may have had a nuke, but he had no capacity to take over the planet.

I am not sure of that. Genghis Khan did not have the capacity to take over the entire planet either, despite his achievements, yet people laud him and his empire. Even in defeat, Hitler still has people who idolize him, albeit in small groups. Victory might have made him much more palatable.

Perhaps. I was assuming that, for the sake of the argument, that the Greater German Reich was still around.

Either case would be just as usable. But even if it wasn't around anymore, I find it hard to believe that it would get any different treatment than the Mongolian Empire did.

Yet most people on this forum who talk about him only mention things like how great his empire was, his tactics, or even how he was somehow an honorable and ethical man
Like who? This is the opposite of my experience.

Do you think the atrocities of Hitler would have been allowed to be discussed if he had succeeded? Genghis Khan was born of a different time, and a different place. The values were different. Had Hitler's atrocities come to light in any way, I doubt that the free world would have lauded him.

And just for the record, I have read more about Genghis Khan's sheer brutality and violence than about how great he was.
dont you think that hitler and his buddies would have been very proud of killing all the jews of europe? that instead of hiding what they had done they would have further demonized jews so that the mass murders seemed necessary and perhaps rather noble?

To those that supported him, he would have been lauded.

The people of the free world would have condemned him as a bloodthirsty conquerer. The Jews would have despised him even more than we already do.

Like who? This is the opposite of my experience.

The few times that he pops up in a discussion? GnD for one. Murv tried convincing me that he was somehow honorable.


The people of the free world would have condemned him as a bloodthirsty conquerer.

No one disputes Genghis Khan was a conquerer. But when discussion turns to him, they sweep the brutality his empire was built on under the rug. Why would Hitler get different treatment?

dont you think that hitler and his buddies would have been very proud of killing all the jews of europe? that instead of hiding what they had done they would have further demonized jews so that the mass murders seemed necessary and perhaps rather noble?

They were already trying to demonise the Jews, and yet, they still kept their crimes hidden from the public. Why do you think that was? Much of the populace at the time weren't particularly friendly to the Jews. And yet, when the truth came out, they were horrified. Why?

"Quote" Hitler was a great leader, but lacked a sane state of mind.

I assume he would have been all but deified until not too long after his death when, pff, I dunno, Doenitz or some such successor would denounce him in a Secret Speech, ushering in the era of the Romano-German Split between the sidelined Mussolini-Hitlerist Fascists and those they denounce as Revisionists... or something.

the women were either sold into slavery or had worse happen to them.

This is false. He banned selling women into slavery.

They were already trying to demonise the Jews, and yet, they still kept their crimes hidden from the public. Why do you think that was? Much of the populace at the time weren't particularly friendly to the Jews. And yet, when the truth came out, they were horrified. Why?

The difference was being that it was thrust into their faces as opposed to something sanitary and out of sight. It's not like the people who lived near the death camps couldn't figure out what was happening.

When people use terms like great, they are using it in the cultural context, they are using it relative to other leaders at the time. Relative to other leaders of his time, Genghis may have been 'great'. Hitler on the other hand, was not particularly great, relative to other world leaders at the time.

When people use terms like great, they are using it in the cultural context, they are using it relative to other leaders at the time. Relative to other leaders of his time, Genghis may have been 'great'. Hitler on the other hand, was not particularly great, relative to other world leaders at the time.
^This

The Nazi party was quite pro-green wasn't it? Give it 400 years and if our current (American) model of capitalism has brought us to the brink of extinction then maybe you'll see a reversal of favour even though they were defeated.

Its all about how well the victor can provide for you isn't it?

When people use terms like great, they are using it in the cultural context, they are using it relative to other leaders at the time. Relative to other leaders of his time, Genghis may have been 'great'. Hitler on the other hand, was not particularly great, relative to other world leaders at the time.

The only terms to put Genghis 'greater' than the other leaders of his time would be that he was bigger on bloodshed, brutality, and military tactics.

Hitler wasn't particularly great in the context because he lost. I'm positing that if he had won, the context would state that he was be great.

The only terms to put Genghis 'greater' than the other leaders of his time would be that he was bigger on bloodshed, brutality
Not really.

The only terms to put Genghis 'greater' than the other leaders of his time would be that he was bigger on bloodshed, brutality, and military tactics.

Hitler wasn't particularly great in the context because he lost. I'm positing that if he had won, the context would state that he was be great.


yes genghis was more brutal than hitler but your leaving out the RUSSIANS they were brutal on the NAZI's they slaughtered them

The russians well soviets pwned

The only terms to put Genghis 'greater' than the other leaders of his time would be that he was bigger on bloodshed, brutality, and military tactics.


Wrong. he supported freedom of religion, was against torture, stopped the endless kidnapping and raiding out in the steppes, instituted a gigantic meritocracy, rather than the clan and noble based leadership that existed before... The man was a progressive... For his time.

Wrong. he supported freedom of religion,


For a man who proclaimed himself the "wrath of god", of course freedom of religion would work nicely in his campaign of terror.


was against torture,


Hah! Rape, looting and murder were the norm for the Khan's troops when they took a city. He also had entire cities slaughtered to the last man woman and child. Not torturing is the least of his horrors, and he certainly did nothing to stop his troops to indulge in torture for their sick amusement.


stopped the endless kidnapping and raiding out in the steppes,


Replaced by conscripting surrendering people to serve as expendable cannon fodder. Oh yeah, that's better. Somehow. In magic land.


instituted a gigantic meritocracy, rather than the clan and noble based leadership that existed before


Riiight. A giant meritocracy where people had the option of serving as slave troops or being butchered if they weren't Mongolians.


... The man was a progressive... For his time.

The man was an outright butcher who wanted an empire and got one through a combination of luck, strategic thinking and plain brutality. The fact that you try to gloss over this with that sort of points only proves what I've said. Victory makes anything acceptable.

Nah, cause We'd still be fighting it...Youd see something similar to the perpetual war in 1984 I think...

Like who? This is the opposite of my experience.

I see Genghis Khan's reputation as a mixed bag. He is lauded for his skill as a tactician and reviled for his use of the strategies he concocted. It should also be known that if you and he made a deal, and you stuck to your end, he had your back. However, the carnage he lead most certainly outweigh any of the good about him, in my opinion and in the opinions of many others.

Hitler may have had a few good ideas in and of himself when it comes to what he did for the people he didn't have gassed, but he was, frankly, surrounded by idiots (Göring comes to mind) and too blind and stubborn on that for his own good. That said, there is no doubt here that the bad most certainly outweighs the good.


The Cold War would have been between Capitalism and Fascism instead of Capitalism and Communism.

Fascism is a system of government. Capitalism is an economic system. They were, by and large, used together in the form of a fascist regime practicing Keynesian capitalism (government intervention in parts of the market). How would the two conflict if they tend to go hand-in-hand?

A side note: Communism is an economic system whose concoctors (Marx & Engels) prescribed a form of government (which was actually intended to be much closer to Athenian-style democracy when all was said and done than Stalinist totalitarianism if anyone actually bothers to look at what Marx & Engels actually wrote instead of relying on the likes of Joseph McCarthy) to implement it. I'm still not sure exactly what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" at the beginning of the transition from capitalism to late-stage communism is supposed to mean, but I'm positive it has nothing to do with Lenin's vanguard party or Stalin's iron fist.

For a man who proclaimed himself the "wrath of god", of course freedom of religion would work nicely in his campaign of terror.

That was Atilla the Hun, The Scourge of God.

If Hitler had been successful in war and had successfully swept his dirty laundry under the rug, obliterating any evidence of his crimes or at least getting to the point where he could convincingly deny responsibility, then he might be respected today, sure. The Soviets were feared in this country during the depression, and Hitler's offensive against them could be spun as a reasonable reaction to the threat of the 'red menace.' Hitler's racial theories were, sadly, shared by a large number of respected historical figures, and Hitler supposedly modeled his eugenics program after one we had in the U.S. So, although we'd know by now how wrong he was, we might not fault him for being wrong at the time, provided we didn't believe that the Holocaust had occurred. There were prominent people here who believed in sterilizing the poor and the handicapped, after all, and with our large German population, we would've had a generation of kids who were taught Hitler's propaganda as fact to a large degree. It's a scary alternative history, isn't it?

That was Atilla the Hun, The Scourge of God.

Yes. It was Klaus Kinski who was the "Wrath of God" (Zorn Gottes). :tongue:

If Hitler had been successful in war and had successfully swept his dirty laundry under the rug, obliterating any evidence of his crimes or at least getting to the point where he could convincingly deny responsibility, then he might be respected today, sure. The Soviets were feared in this country during the depression, and Hitler's offensive against them could be spun as a reasonable reaction to the threat of the 'red menace.' Hitler's racial theories were, sadly, shared by a large number of respected historical figures, and Hitler supposedly modeled his eugenics program after one we had in the U.S. So, although we'd know by now how wrong he was, we might not fault him for being wrong at the time, provided we didn't believe that the Holocaust had occurred. There were prominent people here who believed in sterilizing the poor and the handicapped, after all, and with our large German population, we would've had a generation of kids who were taught Hitler's propaganda as fact to a large degree. It's a scary alternative history, isn't it?

Had I been in early 1930s Germany, not knowing what he was really going to do, I would probably have gone along with it. Knowing what we know now, of course my answer would be a resounding "Hell no!" I bet a lot of Germans had the same mindset after the war.

Had I been in early 1930s Germany, not knowing what he was really going to do, I would probably have gone along with it. Knowing what we know now, of course my answer would be a resounding "Hell no!" I bet a lot of Germans had the same mindset after the war.

I know I wouldnt, he had public Book Burnings, and segregated an entire group of people right before the populace's eyes...

I wouldnt have even went with my own State at that time...Idve probably been hanged...

I know I wouldnt, he had public Book Burnings, and segregated an entire group of people right before the populace's eyes...

I wouldnt have even went with my own State at that time...Idve probably been hanged...

By "went along with it" I mean just let it happen. Not actively oppose it, but not be front and center in it either. Partly out of fear of disappearing and partly because his plans called for putting jobless people to work.

Don't get me wrong - I am about the furthest thing from a Nazi I can think of. Their ideology was all of despicable and then some. But one must consider the circumstances that brought him to power. A desperate, hungry, unemployed, and frankly pissed off people, for whom the paper money they had was worth more for starting fires in the woodstoves than as currency (for example, a loaf of bread cost millions of Reichsmarks). Along comes a guy who points a finger, says it's "their" fault, and says he has a plan to fix it. Now we drop you into the scenario. You're hungry, unemployed, and desperate for someone who actually appears to give a damn to come on the scene, and there is that someone. What would you do?

You're hungry, unemployed, and desperate for someone who actually appears to give a damn to come on the scene, and there is that someone. What would you do?

My first thought is to pull an Einstein and hop the first transport back to the USofA lol...

but, idk, probably what you said, although, I would desperately try and do the aforementioned...

My first thought is to pull an Einstein and hop the first transport back to the USofA lol...

but, idk, probably what you said, although, I would desperately try and do the aforementioned...

The US wasn't in that much better of a position. Not only was the economy bad, but our politicians at the time weren't particularly immigrant-friendly as it was, even without the economic collapse. Out of the millions killed and slated to be killed, we rescued 1000. One thousand out of millions.

If Hitler had been successful in war and had successfully swept his dirty laundry under the rug, obliterating any evidence of his crimes or at least getting to the point where he could convincingly deny responsibility, then he might be respected today, sure.

I doubt he would have had to obliterate the evidence. All he would have needed to was win the war and build his Greater German Reich. Genghis didn't hide his brutality after all, he had it chronicled, and people take that in stride. Death camps and the like would probably be seen the same way.

I doubt he would have had to obliterate the evidence. All he would have needed to was win the war and build his Greater German Reich. Genghis didn't hide his brutality after all, he had it chronicled, and people take that in stride. Death camps and the like would probably be seen the same way.

How could they have obliterated the evidence? They wrote down everything they did. There would simply have been too much to get it all. As far as I know, they weren't as public with it as Genghis Khan was, but they kept records of everything.

How could they have obliterated the evidence? They wrote down everything they did. There would simply have been too much to get it all. As far as I know, they weren't as public with it as Genghis Khan was, but they kept records of everything.

I'm not saying he would have to obliterate the evidence. Even if it came out, if he won the war, people will simply sweep it under the rug as a self evident necessity for the Reich.

Uhm ok.

So basically; you are dropping the jewish thing, the master race thing, and the brutality thing.

It's a different man, so what's your point?

I'm not saying he would have to obliterate the evidence. Even if it came out, if he won the war, people will simply sweep it under the rug as a self evident necessity for the Reich.

Why not just say explain it away then? Swept under the carpet sounds like an attempt to cover up the fact that it even happened in the first place.

Uhm ok.

So basically; you are dropping the jewish thing, the master race thing, and the brutality thing.

It's a different man, so what's your point?

That anything is permitted apparently, if you win.

Dropping the "Jewish thing" as you call it in either case, is only right and proper, since they were hardly the sole targets for extermination. One selectively killed people by religious and social circles. The other just killed people indiscriminately as long as they were part of a country that didn't bow down immediately to him.

Is equal opportunity slaughter somehow better than biased slaughter?

Had he won: sure. His enemy Churchill was right on the money about making history kind to those that write it.

But let us remember why Hitler is generally reviled: He lost from the outset. Churchill had him beat with a much cooler campaign sign:

http://www.solarnavigator.net/history/explorers_history/winston_chruchill_adolf_hitler_scissors_beat_paper.jpg

This is why we love Churchill, and hate Hitler. Hitler lost. BIG TIME!

I doubt he would have had to obliterate the evidence. All he would have needed to was win the war and build his Greater German Reich. Genghis didn't hide his brutality after all, he had it chronicled, and people take that in stride. Death camps and the like would probably be seen the same way.

Without making any effort to destroy the evidence, he'd be less likely to be respected by non-Germans, even if his prowess as a politician and conqueror would still be admired. At least, that's what I would hope. Genghis Kahn is celebrated as a conqueror, like you said, but his brutality is still legendary and still disgusts readers of history. Assuming that all the world didn't become Germania, the PR war would be much more difficult to win if the evidence were openly available.

The novel Fatherland and the film adaptation was one alternate reality speculation into what would have happened.

The novel Fatherland and the film adaptation was one alternate reality speculation into what would have happened.

Didn't Newt Gingrich write one too? Not that I'd be particularly eager to read him, but I remember hearing about it.

Yes. It was Klaus Kinski who was the "Wrath of God" (Zorn Gottes). :tongue:

I see, an obscure reference to a 1970s German film about conquistadors in Peru starring a German actor famous for his ability to project onscreen intensity, and for his explosive temperament.

Yes.

/threadwin

I see, an obscure reference to a 1970s German film about conquistadors in Peru starring a German actor famous for his ability to project onscreen intensity, and for his explosive temperament.

Aw, it isn't that obscure. :( It's a great movie, and Herzog is very famous even today.

By "went along with it" I mean just let it happen. Not actively oppose it, but not be front and center in it either. Partly out of fear of disappearing and partly because his plans called for putting jobless people to work.

Don't get me wrong - I am about the furthest thing from a Nazi I can think of. Their ideology was all of despicable and then some. But one must consider the circumstances that brought him to power. A desperate, hungry, unemployed, and frankly pissed off people, for whom the paper money they had was worth more for starting fires in the woodstoves than as currency (for example, a loaf of bread cost millions of Reichsmarks). Along comes a guy who points a finger, says it's "their" fault, and says he has a plan to fix it. Now we drop you into the scenario. You're hungry, unemployed, and desperate for someone who actually appears to give a damn to come on the scene, and there is that someone. What would you do?

Given that I fall into the category of people being blamed, it's hard to remain objective. I understand why people would follow the guy, but I have an extreme distaste for racism. Say one word about racial purity, and I will work to oppose you.

\Say one word about racial purity, and I will work to oppose you.

racial purity is wrong



Good luck with that, ;) lol

Why is that? Does victory make all the difference?

Not to me. But to the general consensus, I think it does.
He who controls the present, controls the past.

But let us remember why Hitler is generally reviled: He lost from the outset. Churchill had him beat with a much cooler campaign sign:


Nice one... but what about Stalin's stone vs Churchill's scissors? :D

Nice one... but what about Stalin's stone vs Churchill's scissors? :D

Truman's Nuke, lol ;)

Truman's Nuke, lol ;)

The sign for the stone is the clenched fist.
What is the sign for the nuke? :confused:

The sign for the stone is the clenched fist.
What is the sign for the nuke? :confused:

The Middle Finger, :p

It's human instinct to cling to the winner. To eventually root for the winning team in sports, to support the ideology that their country follows, to justify the means that led to a great ending.

So yes. Hitler would be highly respected. His atrocities would be written off as "cruel but necessary". That he had to kill all the Jews to remove them from power, and there was no other way. In mass opinion, Jews would be demonized, like we demonize bank CEOs, only much stronger.

His achievements, on the other hand, would be widely advertised and lauded. And even if his Reich ultimately fell apart, Hitler, being megalomaniac, would have left great monuments. Not everything Reich did was bad. Start with the Volkswagen; the German response (actually a stolen and shrunk Czech Tatra T97) to Model T, but much better. The Reich would have industrialized the Eastern Europe and Asia, brought wealth. And as generations were brought up in the new culture, the oppression level would get toned down. Of course, you'd still have to remember that the Germans are the superior race, but that's OK, because you'd be thoroughly explained in school and throughout your life why they are so damn great.

If the Reich lasted for at least a few generations, people wouldn't even any longer consider what happened in WWII atrocities, but rather believe it was the right thing to do.

The sign for the stone is the clenched fist.
What is the sign for the nuke? :confused:
http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/h/images/history_gerom.thumbs.lg.jpg

It's human instinct to cling to the winner. To eventually root for the winning team in sports, to support the ideology that their country follows, to justify the means that led to a great ending.


It seems to me that at the end of the day, anything is permitted, no matter how horrific, senseless or just outright insane it is, as long as you win.

the middle finger, :p

http://www.artlex.com/artlex/h/images/history_gerom.thumbs.lg.jpg

Good one, :D

If he had won? Supposing he didn't flub it up, took Russia and dropped his planned fission bomb on New York, got his greater German Reich and was a world power today, would he have been called a great man instead of the caricature of evil he is generally portrayed as?

I suspect most on this forum would, even those who are opposed to war in general.

Consider, Genghis Khan, an unarguable butcher who only brought misery and suffering to the people of every country he invaded. Much of the populace ended up as cannon fodder troops if they were men while the women were either sold into slavery or had worse happen to them. And that was if you surrendered to him right at the outset. The ones who resisted were butchered to the last man, woman and child. He made no excuses for that, in fact, had it chronicled as a great thing.

Yet most people on this forum who talk about him only mention things like how great his empire was, his tactics, or even how he was somehow an honorable and ethical man despite the fact that he would have likely made Hitler and even the Japanese in Nanjing puke with his outright brutality, the only thing you could rely on the man to deliver.

Why is that? Does victory make all the difference?


I believe what would've happened would've been a Cold War situation throughout the rest of the 40s and 50s, with the Reich being perpetually weakened by an extensive British insurgency and the Royal Armed Forces fighting them in exile from around the globe. The Japanese would've been crushed by the Americans still yet, and ultimately we would've won it out. It would've taken awhile and be brutally bloody, but the Allies would've won it out. I think that the Reich also would've collapsed under its own weight anyhow within twenty years (I say within to represent any time from one second past Midnight, January 1st 1942, to one second past midnight 1962).

They were already trying to demonise the Jews, and yet, they still kept their crimes hidden from the public. Why do you think that was? Much of the populace at the time weren't particularly friendly to the Jews. And yet, when the truth came out, they were horrified. Why?
i think they kept it "secret" to avoid international disgust and to keep from reaching the trigger point where even those who despise jews will rise up to defend them from what was really happening. those europeans who didnt have reason to know that the regime was committing genocide were OK with the idea that they were all being deported and put into cruel work camps (where they might end up dying but bad things happen in war) if they knew the details of mass murder they may have taken action of some kind. (which "action" is more possible in germany where the govt might care what the public thinks)

after the victory, with a new reality of german rule, the deed would have been done. the destruction of the jews would not be more horrifying than what they would have done to the russians, or the nuking of the US. with proper PR it would become part of the glorious victory that purified the genetic stock of germany (and a gift to the rest of europe in purifying their gene pool)

I for one am skeptical that his Reich would have out lived him for long (leaving aside that his victory was all but mathematically impossible. Even having a few nuclear weapons wouldn't have saved him, because I'm betting America could deliver their's to Germany much more easily than he could have delivered his to America, and there's a lot more of America to nuke).

While his charisma, propoganda, and brainwashing, plus the possibility of death if you didn't play along, would have likely whitewashed a lot of his legacy, he could never have controlled the whole world for very long. Eventually, like all empires, his would have collapsed. And at least some people would remember him as the bastard that he was. Though it is true that it probably wouldn't automatically make you scum in the civilized world if you admired the man. Also, racism would probably be much more common and accepted in our time.

Oh, and if Hitler wins, Communism is fucked.

I for one am skeptical that his Reich would have out lived him for long (leaving aside that his victory was all but mathematically impossible.
Hitler wasn't all that bright. He created the regime, but it would go on even better without him.


Even having a few nuclear weapons wouldn't have saved him, because I'm betting America could deliver their's to Germany much more easily than he could have delivered his to America, and there's a lot more of America to nuke).
The technology to mass-produce nuclear weapons wasn't available until the 50's, more specifically it went functional in 1952. 1945-1950 bombs have cost more than it would to produce and deliver the same amount of damage using chemical explosives. Even if extremely rushed, we're still looking at no sooner than 1948 for nuclear weapons to surpass conventional ones in cost-efficiency (and thus total delivered damage).

Well obviously, that's one of the most stupid questions I have ever seen posted on this forum.

It's human instinct to cling to the winner. To eventually root for the winning team in sports, to support the ideology that their country follows, to justify the means that led to a great ending.
You seem to be ignorant of the level of support for the Scottish national football team; a group which consistantly loses.

Never heard the phrase, 'everyone likes an underdog'?

It would've taken awhile and be brutally bloody, but the Allies would've won it out.

With the Soviet Union out of the game, the factories of the Urals under its control, little to no threat to its fuel oil supply and industrial base (assuming they took England), the Reich would have had a hugely more effective fighting force to throw at the Western theater. Who would win the war in the end is a complete toss up at that point.

I for one am skeptical that his Reich would have out lived him for long (leaving aside that his victory was all but mathematically impossible. Even having a few nuclear weapons wouldn't have saved him, because I'm betting America could deliver their's to Germany much more easily than he could have delivered his to America, and there's a lot more of America to nuke).

This is unlikely, given that the original plans were to deliver an immediate and crushing symbolic blow to America by vaporizing New York and force America out of the game entirely. Without England as a staging ground, the B-29s would have a much harder time trying to deliver their payload on a trans-atlantic route.


Eventually, like all empires, his would have collapsed. And at least some people would remember him as the bastard that he was. Though it is true that it probably wouldn't automatically make you scum in the civilized world if you admired the man. Also, racism would probably be much more common and accepted in our time.

Every country collapses eventually. You can't escape entropy. The difference is how you're remembered. It's the point of the thread.

If Hitler would have won, he would have been just like Stalin. He would have had the books written in the way he wanted them to be, and the lies in the media would have brainwashed the people into believing what he wanted them to believe.
The common person's mind is dull, I'll have you know, and can be manipulated like warm putty. Hitler was a great, loyal man... he just was influenced by the wrong people.
If he was influenced by other people, then perhaps he might have been leading Germany today, honestly and greatly.

Hitler was a great, loyal man... he just was influenced by the wrong people.
...ever cared to read a biography of him?
Abusive and incestous parents, troubled relationship with the other gender, a life as unemployed, unsuccesful artist whose paintings nobody wanted, giant inferiority complex, several suicide attempts.
How exactly was he "great"?

he would have stubbed his toe eventually. without the u.s. to have kicked imperial japan's ass, japan and the rest of asia would eventually have kicked his.

Now, people say are saying that he would be celebrated in the Reich and its satelite states. However, I took the OP to mean if he had suceeded in his overall plan, which was to conquer the whole world, and submit everyone in it to German superiority. So, part of the question hinges on whether he suceeded in doing that, or simply in establishing Germany as a major world power.

Also, someone said something about if what he'd done came to light, noone would laud him anymore. However, lets look at the good 'ole US. We dropped two nukes on Japanese cities, probably killing hundreds of thousands. And, since yes, I know that was war, let me also point out that we more or less forced them to open diplomatic ties with the world, and its possible that had we not done that, Japan would still be keeping to itself. We also completely fucked over the Native Americans, with what was damn near genocide. None of this is exactly a secret, and yet most Americans (at least where I live) are highly patriotic and supportive of the USA.

Not outside the Reich. The US would've been even more hostile to the Nazi regime than it ever was to the Soviets, especially since it was a blatant part of his thinking to eventually conquer the United States once Germany had achieved its local goals. Nazism was inherently based on hatred and expansionism...Communism might have had its own problems, but even the worst GULAGs weren't designed to be death camps like those seen in the Reich. Even before the war, sentiment towards Nazi Germany was hardly positive in the United States, so I don't think for a second that we would ever laud the Germans for victory. It's pretty likely another Cold War would develop, although the long-term stability of the Nazi regime is pretty questionable. Unlike Communism, there really wasn't a plan for the future...once the enemies were defeated. lebensraum established and the undesirables exterminated, what else was really left?

However, it would be interesting to see how our relationship with Japan would change as a result of German victory. I think it's likely they would become a third superpower that would attempt to balance each of us against each other, especially since their war aims were motivated overwhelmingly by economic concerns and the desire to carve out a large sphere of influence in Asia. It was a lot more pragmatic than the Nazis' racial mythology and so likely less susceptible to the occasionally foolish decisionmaking that would continue to plague German policymaking, at least as long as Hitler retained significant influence.

Not outside the Reich. The US would've been even more hostile to the Nazi regime than it ever was to the Soviets, especially since it was a blatant part of his thinking to eventually conquer the United States once Germany had achieved its local goals.

Really? I thought the idea behind the Silverbogel program was to bomb New York as a sign of its strength and hammer out a treaty based on the threat of more intercontinental bombers.

Certainly, sentiment ran against Nazi Germany in the United States, but that didn't stop people from doing business with them, and wasn't communism seen as the greater threat with fascism at the time until just before the war?


It's pretty likely another Cold War would develop, although the long-term stability of the Nazi regime is pretty questionable. Unlike Communism, there really wasn't a plan for the future...


Good point with the Cold War, but since the Cold War did produce a winner and loser, the same concepts of who's left being lauded still apply.


once the enemies were defeated. lebensraum established and the undesirables exterminated, what else was really left?

Probably something crazily prideful. Like colonizing the moon or something.

...ever cared to read a biography of him?
Abusive and incestous parents, troubled relationship with the other gender, a life as unemployed, unsuccesful artist whose paintings nobody wanted, giant inferiority complex, several suicide attempts.
How exactly was he "great"?

Doesn't that prove my point? He was a great man, but he suffered a lot in his younger years, turning him into the monsters his parents were.
He was mentally unstable because of trauma in the past. We shouldn't ignore that fact.

Doesn't that prove my point? He was a great man, but he suffered a lot in his younger years, turning him into the monsters his parents were.
He was mentally unstable because of trauma in the past. We shouldn't ignore that fact.

o.O

He would have been a great man if his formative years hadn't stopped him from becoming a great man.....huh?

Of course, but he didn't. Therefore he is evil incarnate instead of savior and protector of a pure human race. Amazing the difference in winning and losing, eh?

It's human instinct to cling to the winner. To eventually root for the winning team in sports, to support the ideology that their country follows, to justify the means that led to a great ending.
And that's why everyone loves the USA. Right?

People love the underdog. They may fall into line with whoever is on top at the moment, but they'll be rooting for him to trip over his shoelaces and get kicked in by the competition.
Unlike Communism, there really wasn't a plan for the future...once the enemies were defeated. lebensraum established and the undesirables exterminated, what else was really left?
More lebensraum, more enemies, more undesirables. Nazism would keep going until there was one human left alive to rule the entire planet.