Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 5/8/2003 5:57:04 PM EDT
I just got done watching a documentary on PBS (Yes, PBS) on what if Hitler had invaded England and succeeded. I have to say, it was pretty good. It covers the what the British reaction would have been (From offical records) and how the Germans would have reacted (From offical records and history). What's really the neat part is that they use CGI (Computer Graphics Imagary) to overlay Nazi's in London and various parts of England. The really amazing part is where they put Nazi troops marching in front of Big Ben in London and in front of Winsor Castle. If your a history buff like myself, then watch it It's called "Hitler Victory" and it's on PBS.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 10:01:35 PM EDT
When's it on again? I wonder what the world would be like today if the Thousand Year Reich reigned true...?
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 10:08:58 PM EDT
No matter what Hitler did, he would have lost. Remember the Manhattan Project was started with him in mind. He could have successfully conquered Russia, prevented the Normandy landings and even invaded England but by 1945 atomic bombs would fall on Berlin.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 1:28:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: No matter what Hitler did, he would have lost. Remember the Manhattan Project was started with him in mind. He could have successfully conquered Russia, prevented the Normandy landings and even invaded England but by 1945 atomic bombs would fall on Berlin.
View Quote
If he had conquered Russia and England where would the bombers dropping the atomic bombs and fighter escorts be based at?
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 1:45:16 AM EDT
And by that time,he'd probably have his own nukes. Imagine the sheer destruction he would have wrought. Too bad amphetamines and Parkinson's disease were his downfall...He could have been a true conqueror.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 1:54:27 AM EDT
The planes could fly from anywhere, including the US. We already were flying across the Atlantic and with refueling in the Azores, Iceland or even Portugal it would be possible to reach Germany. Also the Middle East could have been a launching ground within range. But for sake of argument, if the Thousand Year Reich had succeeded and conquered the world, it would still be a mess and rebellion wars would have been greater and deadlier due to the horrific treatment Germany inflicted on every country it conquered. Especially non-caucasion countries or those with Slavic or Jewish populations. People around the world despise and hate the USA because we are supposed to be so arrogant. Try talking to some native Germans and see what arrogance and stubborness really is. The major difference with the US and Germany (besides the genocide, murder, totalitarianism and deadly agression the Germans committed) is that when we conquer an enemy country, we always rebuild it, give them freedom and give it right back to the people. Every country Germany conquered they took total control of, with the exception of a few with puppet regimes, then proceeded to destroy its culture, people and steal its wealth.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 3:18:25 AM EDT
Also, the B-29 was developed with the idea of striking Germany from the US in case GB fell. That capability came in handy flying long distances over the Pacific. We were gearing up to continue the war from the North American continent.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 4:48:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/9/2003 4:56:56 AM EDT by Atencio]
Regarding the middle east bases. If England fell what makes you assume Germany would not control the middle east especially if we go with the assumption that Hitler invaded England when he originally wanted to. There would be no British replacements to fight Rommel in North Africa. With air bases in England, Germany could have easily intercepted incoming bombers with land based fighters. Throw in flak guns over England, western Europe, and Germany herself. Plus the fact that Germanys fighters and jet interceptors would have not had the harrassement of all those allied fighters thus having air superiority over Europe. The B-29 had a range of roughly 3,700 miles. That means leaving from the eastern U.S. seaboard they would be on fumes if they were lucky by the time they reached Berlin. If they had to fly in a head wind, forget it. Portugal was a neutral country that some say dealt in the German-Swiss money connection. So no bases there or the Azores.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 4:53:40 AM EDT
Where's Kar98? He'll love this line:
The major difference with the US and Germany (besides the genocide, murder, totalitarianism and deadly agression the Germans committed) is that when we conquer an enemy country, we always rebuild it, give them freedom and give it right back to the people.
View Quote
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 4:59:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Balzac72: Where's Kar98? He'll love this line:
The major difference with the US and Germany (besides the genocide, murder, totalitarianism and deadly agression the Germans committed) is that when we conquer an enemy country, we always rebuild it, give them freedom and give it right back to the people.
View Quote
View Quote
Like we did to the Indians and Mexico?
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 7:58:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Atencio:
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: No matter what Hitler did, he would have lost. Remember the Manhattan Project was started with him in mind. He could have successfully conquered Russia, prevented the Normandy landings and even invaded England but by 1945 atomic bombs would fall on Berlin.
View Quote
If he had conquered Russia and England where would the bombers dropping the atomic bombs and fighter escorts be based at?
View Quote
Lybia.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 8:04:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By NME: And by that time,he'd probably have his own nukes. Imagine the sheer destruction he would have wrought. Too bad amphetamines and Parkinson's disease were his downfall...He could have been a true conqueror.
View Quote
Nope Germany lacked the physicists (the one guy who was there best bet was still way off) and the nuclear material. Hitler could never have built a bomb until he had a guy who could figure it out and have obtained the correct materials from Russia. Bottom line we were way ahead. And it wasn't just Parkinsons and drugs that caused his downfall. Hitler also made gross blunders. His early successes won against the advice of his Generals convinced Hitler that he was smarter than all of them. But in the early days (Rhineland, Austria, Chechoslovakia, etc.) he was dealing with adversaries who were tring to appease him. Once war began and he fought a dedicated enemy (ie. NOT France) in Africa, Italy, Greece, Russia, etc. he no longer was smarter than the Generals who were there.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 8:13:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Atencio: Regarding the middle east bases. If England fell what makes you assume Germany would not control the middle east especially if we go with the assumption that Hitler invaded England when he originally wanted to. There would be no British replacements to fight Rommel in North Africa. With air bases in England, Germany could have easily intercepted incoming bombers with land based fighters. Throw in flak guns over England, western Europe, and Germany herself. Plus the fact that Germanys fighters and jet interceptors would have not had the harrassement of all those allied fighters thus having air superiority over Europe. The B-29 had a range of roughly 3,700 miles. That means leaving from the eastern U.S. seaboard they would be on fumes if they were lucky by the time they reached Berlin. If they had to fly in a head wind, forget it. Portugal was a neutral country that some say dealt in the German-Swiss money connection. So no bases there or the Azores.
View Quote
I could have sworn Hitler admired muslim's and had a few in his elite SS regiment's. Correct me if I'm wrong please.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 8:49:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Balzac72: Where's Kar98? He'll love this line:
The major difference with the US and Germany (besides the genocide, murder, totalitarianism and deadly agression the Germans committed) is that when we conquer an enemy country, we always rebuild it, give them freedom and give it right back to the people.
View Quote
View Quote
What's the problem, Balzac? It's true. Initially, the Wehrmacht was seen as the liberators from the yoke of bolshevism in the East, and thus Ukrainians, Russians, Byeolorussians cheered for the German soldiers as they arrived and chased the Soviet commissars away. Only through the stupid policy of the German civilian occupation admininstrators, most prominent figure being Koch (can't remember his first name right now. Ernst?) did the sentiment in the Soviet population change 180 degrees. Initially, Russian divisions surrendered en gros, and their commanders offered to fight /alongside/ the German army against the Red Army. But nooooo, General Wlassow's et all offer was turned down in some stupid display of arrogance. Thus the war in Russia was lost, and thus the war was lost. There were more grave mistakes of these dimensions, and every single one of them would have lost the war for Germany, especially in the choice of allies and enemies. WW2 also showed that an army should be run by generals, not by politicians. Hitler's direct interference with the industry prevented the Me262 from becoming a fighter-jet primarly, he tremendously slowed down the development of the assault rifle (it was a bit late for the Stgw.44 to swing anything); after Crete, he personally forbade the further use of paratroopers, oh, and after his personal experience of WMD in WW1 (chlorine and mustard gas, which left him blind for a few months), he ordered the development of nukes being halted, on account of him being literally afraid of setting the planet on fire and his opinion of quantum and nuclear physics being "phony jew sciences".
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 9:03:58 AM EDT
Mullen, Yes it was a good show. Lots of neat info from old records and such. CH
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 9:07:17 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 10:56:41 AM EDT
Blame it on Japan, if they hadn't attacked Pearl, we would not have gotten involved so early. Hard to say just what the outcomes would have been. Lebrew
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 11:17:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: His early successes won against the advice of his Generals convinced Hitler that he was smarter than all of them.
View Quote
Sounds like Rumsfield.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 11:20:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Kar98: he ordered the development of nukes being halted, on account of him being literally afraid of setting the planet on fire
View Quote
I recall in Speer's "Inside the Third Reich" (a very good history, BTW) there was some talk of the physicists not being sure if the nuke would cause a chain reaction. There was some concern among Hitler's entourage that the planet could be turned into a star through Hitler's actions.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 11:34:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By soylent_green:
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: His early successes won against the advice of his Generals convinced Hitler that he was smarter than all of them.
View Quote
Sounds like Rumsfield.
View Quote
The BIG differnce is... Rumsfield is dealing with countries that pose a genuine threat to the security of the US. Hitler by contrast was dealing with the Rhineland, Austria, Chechoslovakia and Poland. Also Hitler was dealing with foreign powers who were interested in appeasing Hitler, they even gave him the Sudatenland. Rumsfield by contrast is dealing with a mostly hostile UN and "mostly" uncooperative NATO allies. And finally Rumsfield is not seeking territorial gains. We aren't gonna start sending oil tankers full of free "liberated" oil to the US or start rounding up "muslims" and put them into concentration camps until we come up with a solution to the "arab issue." At best, we will get a progressive (there's that word liberals love so much except when done by Republicans) government in place, who will be more appreciative of US servicemen who gave their lives for the liberation of Iraq than France currently is. Perhaps if they get a moderate enough Arab government we can actually have genuine relations with them and get favorable trade terms in deferrence to the cost paid by US forces in liberating Iraq from a brutual dictator who could just as easily brought Iraq into a full scale catastrophic war with the US as opposed to a war of liberation. The only thing that really prevented that is Rumsfield is actually nothing like Hitler was. Finally, you've written some truly stupid shit before. But to seriously compare Rumfield to Hilter is probably the dumbest thing you've ever written.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 11:47:25 AM EDT
I saw the tail end of this last night. I didn't catch when it would be on again, but it looked good. I'll have to try and find when it re-plays.
Top Top