Could Germany have won WW2?

[I_M_Weasel]

It's possible their future economy may have worked, after all the bottom tier workers would have been slaves from conquered countries and given only the most basic needs. The ruling German people and their allies may well have been pleased with an economy that supplied all their needs at the expense of a subjugated population of 'lesser races'.

 

[nightrider1470]

Would you agree Stalin was more of a evil dictator than Hitler?

 

[I_M_Weasel]

Would you agree Stalin was more of a evil dictator than Hitler?

It's hard to say, both terrible people capable of the most ruthless of actions, often to the detriment of their own countries.

 

[Outcast]

Might be worth watching this to get a great understanding of the aims of WW2

 

[Sankari]

Would you agree Stalin was more of a evil dictator than Hitler?

It's a close call. Stalin killed many more than Hitler, but Hitler's attempt to exterminate an entire ethnoreligious group is a tough act to follow.

Might be worth watching this to get a great understanding of the aims of WW2

/facepalm

 

[Outcast]

Typical Sankari reaction.

 

[h4rm0ny]

No, they had a lot of fascist and nationalist policies. There was nothing 'left wing' or 'socialist' about them. Nazi Germany was capitalist to the core.

They did have a lot of Nationalist policies. They were National Socialists. One of the key things that distinguished them from the Communists they were fighting was that Fascism is nationalistic and Communism is internationalist. Being Nationalist is not a trait of the Right or the Left. It is its own thing and being Nationalist does not make one not Left Wing. And they were also fascist - correct again. But Fascism as practiced has a lot of Left Wing qualities. The Italian Fascist party who reintroduced the term to the modern era were an offshoot of the Italian Socialist party and retained numerous Left Wing policies - wage control, socialised health care for example. The Nazis were especially Left Wing. Lets see, off the top of my head - they engaged in wide-spread redistribution of wealth. We have comments from industralists of the time complaining that the Nazis "think of nothing but redistribution". They formalised the unions and gave them a formal role in government as the "German Labour Front". Which they merged with the department of economics. You got that? They took union leadership and put it in control of the department of economics. How Left Wing is that? Hitler wrote that essentially what he did was took Marxism and separated it from democratic principles. Politically, the Nazi government was at base corporatism. You're probably one of those who think that means rule by the corporations. It doesn't. They just share the same Latin root corpus, meaning "body". Corporatism is to treat the state like a body with different roles formalised and co-operating with each other as the hand does with the eye. So farmers would have representation in government as a block, alongside factory workers. Does this sound "capitalist" to you? Maybe if you have no idea what capitalism means and just treat it as a synonym for EVIL!!!!. Political organization by blocks of society and attempting to equally balance them is very Left Wing in approach. Plus the endless state interference with private business, of course. Wages and working hours in Nazi germany were determined by "worker councils". Not very Right-wing is it? Read Mein Kampf - it is heavily influenced by Marx.

Now if you want to say that a lot of Left Wing academics jump through hoops to try and claim that Fascism and Nazis are not Left Wing, then I'll agree with that. If you want to claim some neo-Nazis who are bone-heads with no understanding of Nazism beyond the racism are Right Wing, I'll agree with that. But if you want to claim that the actual Nazis under Hitler were not Left Wing but were "Capitalist to the core", then I'll state that you are grossly unaware of the history and practice of Nazism and just want to fit things into your own political preferences. Oh, and I'll back it up with argument as above.

 

[h4rm0ny]

It's possible their future economy may have worked, after all the bottom tier workers would have been slaves from conquered countries and given only the most basic needs. The ruling German people and their allies may well have been pleased with an economy that supplied all their needs at the expense of a subjugated population of 'lesser races'.

That's interesting. So in the above (and genuine question because the arguments have started!) are you assuming in "German victory" to include victory in North Africa? Or do you think occupation of Eastern European territories is sufficient.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Would you agree Stalin was more of a evil dictator than Hitler?

Philosophical point - is evil defined by intent or by result? Because Stalin killed more than Hitler but he also had the whole of Russia to play with. One could also argue that some sort of militaristic and totalitarian turn for Germany was inevitable given the punitive and rapacious behaviour of the victors in WWI was resulting in hyperinflation and ruin in Germany. Whereas the Communist revolution in Russia perhaps didn't have to take the turn it did and Stalin had more of the blame for what happened. Essentially, if not Hitler, then somebody equivalent. But Stalin had murdered Trotsky and other political opponents who were more idealistic about wanting to make Russia good for all. I think Hitler was a True Believer in what he desired for Germany and its people. Whether or not that is laudable given exactly what he believed in, is debatable. But Stalin seems to me to have been much more of an opportunist out for supreme power for his own ends. Which is perhaps part of why Hitler fell apart and shot himself in a bunker when his dream collapsed and Stalin died in bed aged 74 pretty contentedly even though Communism had stalled and his people were miserable. Which do you think is worse? Someone who dedicates them to an cause sincerely but that cause is awful? Or someone who cynically exploits everyone's weaknesses and whose only goal is personal power?


EDIT: Stalin reportedly had a wickedly dark sense of humour that could even be self-deprecating. He reportedly actually told the following joke himself:

The people who cast their votes don't decide the election. The people who count them do.

 

[h4rm0ny]

The Stalin diversion reminds me of this:

Stalin: Hey Hitler, Wanna Hear a Joke?
Hitler: Ja!
Stalin: Stalingrad
Hitler: I Don't Get It
Stalin: Exactly

(I'm so ashamed)

 

[nightrider1470]

Philosophical point - is evil defined by intent or by result? Because Stalin killed more than Hitler but he also had the whole of Russia to play with. One could also argue that some sort of militaristic and totalitarian turn for Germany was inevitable given the punitive and rapacious behaviour of the victors in WWI was resulting in hyperinflation and ruin in Germany. Whereas the Communist revolution in Russia perhaps didn't have to take the turn it did and Stalin had more of the blame for what happened. Essentially, if not Hitler, then somebody equivalent. But Stalin had murdered Trotsky and other political opponents who were more idealistic about wanting to make Russia good for all. I think Hitler was a True Believer in what he desired for Germany and its people. Whether or not that is laudable given exactly what he believed in, is debatable. But Stalin seems to me to have been much more of an opportunist out for supreme power for his own ends. Which is perhaps part of why Hitler fell apart and shot himself in a bunker when his dream collapsed and Stalin died in bed aged 74 pretty contentedly even though Communism had stalled and his people were miserable. Which do you think is worse? Someone who dedicates them to an cause sincerely but that cause is awful? Or someone who cynically exploits everyone's weaknesses and whose only goal is personal power?

Your writing is extremely good!.... Have you ever written anything on a professional level?

 

[Sankari]

Fascism and nationalism are historically right wing positions. This is mainly because right wing political ideologies naturally tend towards authoritarianism.

 

[Lil old me]

Yes, Germany could have won WWII.

* Hitler should have trusted Stalin; there was no need for Germany to fight Russia
* Air force should have been more diversified; the Luftwaffe were superb, but they were too specialised to do all the work required of them
* Jewish scientists should have been retained, not forced out
* Germany fought on too many fronts; entering Russia, Africa, and the Middle East were all bad ideas
* Hitler should have given his generals more control, instead of forcing his poor strategies on them
* Rommel needed more support in Africa; Hitler denied it because he was jealous of Rommel and did not trust him

That's just off the top of my head.

These suggestions completely disregard Hitler's philosophical ideology. His idea of the 'Thousand Year Reich' which required 'living space' in the East; in combination with his dogmatic hatred of the Russians and Jews mean that war with Russia was inevitable and the Jews could never have remained. He saw them as inevitably bringing about the end of civilization, unless they were eradicated, so there was no way he would have allowed them to remain, whatever their skill.

A previous poster also made the point that economically Germany absolutely needed Russia's resources, which is completely true. Without the oil reserves around the black sea, the German war machine would have ground to a halt. The entire German war effort and reconstruction was built on borrowed money. They were no way to sustain the dramatic growth Hitler brought about long term without capturing more land and resources.

Fascism and nationalism are historically right wing positions. This is mainly because right wing political ideologies naturally tend towards authoritarianism.

All political ideologies tend towards authoritarianism at their extreme end.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Your writing is extremely good!.... Have you ever written anything on a professional level?

Thank you. That's very kind. And yes, but it was mainly C++.

 

[Safetytrousers]

Fascism is definitely right wing and Communism is definitely left. But politics is like a circle and if you go far enough the two ends more or less join up.

The bully boys SA enabled Hitler to gain power. The SA were ideologically wanting revolution, and wanted to target the money holders - the brownshirts (SA) wanted to more strongly to enact the socialist part of National Socialism. After Hitler gained power he dismantled the SA in the so-called 'night of the long knives'. This was because the Nazis could not afford to have the SA antagonizing the elites in the country because Hitler need the acquiescence of the these power blocks to stay in power and further his aims (and because the SA as a power block could have threatened Hitlers position).

 

[h4rm0ny]

Fascism and nationalism are historically right wing positions. This is mainly because right wing political ideologies naturally tend towards authoritarianism.

Fascism began quite literally as a variant of socialism and maintained numerous socialist beliefs and was opposed to capitalism throughout its existence. Nationalism is "right wing" only in so far as it is frequently opposed to communism which is internationalist as a key part of its doctrine. But that is a little like saying I am not vegetarian because my neighbour who I fight with is and keeps trying to steal my bacon is. One's opponents do not necessarily define one. Imperialistic monarchies, theocracies, numerous ethno states - not Right Wing yet are historically extremely nationalistic. Globalist oligarchs - extreme Right Wing but internationalist.

Nationalism is its own axis. As already stated, one of the key sources of tension between the Communists and the Nazis in the Weimar republic was that the former were internationalist and the latter nationalist. But both were heavily Left Wing. If both can be Left Wing yet differ on a given point, then that given point cannot be an inherent attribute of being Left Wing.

Largely the Left v. Right debate on Nazis, Communists, et al. comes down to whether one approaches it as a factionalist or an analyst. If you are invested in a faction and wish to show it is superior to a rival faction, then by necessity you must downplay the faction's negatives and accentuate the positives. Including No True Socialism'ing any Nazis, Venezuelas or Winter of Discontents that come along. That's my opinion. Just as most of my fellow Right Winger's will quickly throw Martin Shkreli under the carpet whilst coughing loudly and pointing over there!

I believe that I approach with an Analyst hat on and look at definitions but of course it is hard to be unbiased. However, I will say that in my experience of debating this, the arguers that Nazism is Right Wing (or especially absurd, that it is capitalist) almost always push Argument by Assertion, followed by defining any negative traits as properties of Right Wing (my favourite ever was "corruption is a trait of capitalism"). And finally, if pushed, Appeal to Authority. There's always an academic available to support any position. That's what academics are for - to make Real Politik sound moral and good.

Anyway, we've veered into opinion with the last. I think I've made a solid case so ideally this part can be shelved and if someone disagrees with me, they disagree with me.

 

[I_M_Weasel]

That's interesting. So in the above (and genuine question because the arguments have started!) are you assuming in "German victory" to include victory in North Africa? Or do you think occupation of Eastern European territories is sufficient.

I'm looking at a scenario where Germany met all its war aims; Europe, USSR under direct control and other areas under control of friendly governments or Axis allies. A victory leaving just Germany, France and Poland wouldn't be enough, it wouldn't have given them the resources, the living room or the people that the German plan needed.

I think Germany were stuck once they started the War, they had to win, just gaining the surrounding countries didn't give them what they needed; by 1942 they should have really tried to settle before the tide really turned against them, once it did, they had no hope of any kind of negotiated peace that didn't involve complete surrender and would've made the terms of Versailles seem generous.

As to the conduct of the whole war there are lots of 'what ifs', 'why didn't they'


Why didn't they destroy the RAF in the battle of Britain?

Although the change to city bombing relieved the strain on the RAF, the RAF never had to fight if they didn't want to, they could have preserved their strength by moving aircraft north only using them when it really mattered, such as during an invasion. Yes, this leaves the south vulnerable to air attack but that doesn't make nations surrender - just look at how heavily Germany's cities were bombed, didn't stop them.

Why didn't they finish Britain off?

They couldn't, look how hard it was for us to invade Europe with overwhelming sea and air power, Germany had nothing near the sea lift required.

Why invade the USSR?

Although allies at the start of the war neither side was under any illusion that they were friends and couldn't have been further apart on ideology, pretty much the entire point of the war was to take the USSR and its resources and to enslave it's people. Germany knew that the USSR wasn't ready and needed to invade before it was, as once mobilised it would become a very different game. Things might have gone better for Germany here if his Allie Italy hadn't got in trouble in Africa forcing a reinforcement to that area that delayed the Russian campaign. Germany needed a quick win, before the winter and that delay might have been the step that saved Moscow.

Why didn't they use strategic bombing like the Allies?

Germany lacked the resources and manpower to have everything and had to decide where its priorities lay, had it invested in bombers it would have had less of something else - and as mentioned earlier, unlikely to make your enemy surrender.

Why didn't they win in North Africa?

Again they don't have the resources, give more here and we delay the Russia campaign even more. Germany and Italy might have been better giving up here earlier, a campaign that was really tough to win for the Axis that was tieing down troops that could have really made a difference in Russia. They were of course keeping many allied units busy but it's not as if they could have been used elsewhere at this time and would've just been languishing in the UK, instead they were given opportunity to contribute to the war.

 

[Zethor]

Now if you want to say that a lot of Left Wing academics jump through hoops to try and claim that Fascism and Nazis are not Left Wing, then I'll agree with that. If you want to claim some neo-Nazis who are bone-heads with no understanding of Nazism beyond the racism are Right Wing, I'll agree with that. But if you want to claim that the actual Nazis under Hitler were not Left Wing but were "Capitalist to the core", then I'll state that you are grossly unaware of the history and practice of Nazism and just want to fit things into your own political preferences. Oh, and I'll back it up with argument as above.

Are you saying the Nazis were Left Wing or at least leaning more to the Left than the Right?

 

[LabR@t]

No, they had a lot of fascist and nationalist policies. There was nothing 'left wing' or 'socialist' about them. Nazi Germany was capitalist to the core.

Rubbish,

 

[dannyjo22]

* Rommel needed more support in Africa; Hitler denied it because he was jealous of Rommel and did not trust him

That's just off the top of my head.

That's interesting as recently I have read Ian Kershaws huge Hitler biography, both Antony Beevers second world war book and Max Hastings huge all hell let loose and all three state the exact opposite regards Rommel, that he was so liked by Hitler that he was allowed to get away with being a bit free and easy with orders he followed. They all state that the trouble was Hitler wouldn't let him withdraw or retreat and regroup, he absolutely would rather fight to the last man than retreat. All three books state Hitler as a tactical buffoon who because of some early war success in Poland and Norway thought he was much better than he actually was.

Would you agree Stalin was more of a evil dictator than Hitler?

Reading the above books I have more resentment for what the Japanese did than the Russians or Germans. Some of it so awful I wish I'd never read it.

Someone mentioned Vemork, Hunting Hitlers nukes by Damien Lewis is a good account of that, very recent and awesome story of what that team went through.

Personally from the vast reading I have done the last few years on the subject there are so many what if's and buts, yet if he'd followed the original timescale and given himself the extra 3 or 4 years the military were telling him they would need they would have wiped as much of Europe and Russia out as required, the super weapons being developed would have been ready and most likely would have beaten America to the Bomb. Thanks the maker he was a military idiot.