If Hitler had of won the war....

I often wonder but 90 years on after WW2, if hitler and his nazi's had of won, 90 years later would life be better now...

Hitler would have continued to seize and capture city by city, until he had every country under his control except for Russia, America and their Allies, Japan etc, at some point Germany would be pretty much all of Europe and well, with a super power controlling all of europe and the UK all manufacturing ARMS at a staggering rate taking over fleets of ships and planes..

We'd eventually get to a very messy point where was has to take place between Germany (whole of Europe) America and Russia (What possibilities here lay endless to speculation) my own opinion would be with German's help Japan would take over all of asia while Australia layed like sitting ducks to be take over..

Let's say Germany won, and just to teach japan a lesson for trusting them, took over japan with sheer force, we end up with all of Asia, Australia, Europe, against the Russians and Americans, but with all the arms being manufactured across most of the planet in favor of Germany it's only a matter of time before the nuclear missile was ready, but I got a feeling America would not have the chance to even worry about nuclear weapons when most of the planet is now your enemy.

In this instance, Hitler wins, turns against his allies eventually taking over most of the planet, now 90 years on, all the leaders are dead, uprisings begin, BUT, and it's really a big BUT.

*1 Global Nation *1 Power *1 Language

You'd be free to travel anywhere anytime, silly little countries like Syria would not exist it would all be occupied, countries wait, what countries, any "little" groups who make arms I'm sure they'd be dealt with very quickly.

We'd have no wars anywhere!

I'm not advocating what Hitler did here for the record.

I mean, there would be so much suffering going on, mass exterminating for example, but come 90 years later if that no longer took place and things settled, would life now 90 years later be better? in some ways?

Have you ever read P.K. Dick's "Man in the High Castle" ? You should...

Otherwise, I think not. Hitler was already beyond what he could control, well before he lost. Arguably, I think I could claim that the USSR did the same thing that you're claiming would have been good, to the area that they (theoretically) controlled. And THAT didn't work out so well.

Or, you're asking "wouldn't it be better if the whole world were controlled by a single ideology, even if that ideology were relatively evil?" Which perhaps would be true, but neglects that I don't think it would be possible in the first place. (For instance, it'd hard for me to imagine that Japan and Germany would have continued to get along.) (or, look at the current middle east; theoretically, they are united by their common Muslim faith, right? Right.)

You are kidding right, what you want is thugs, bullies and murderers running your life?

On an almost separate subject I have bouncing between my two brain cells a quotation about why you should not give people power over you. Fairly certain it was an American, nice use of words, cannot remember what he said but wish I and a lot of other people could.

a quotation about why you should not give people power over you. Fairly certain it was an American,

Milgram?

had of

What does that mean?

AWOL:

had of

What does that mean?

It's a (colloquial) phonetic contraction of "had have" or "had had", a sort of past perfect. :D

I think it would have been terribly destabilizing to have three, instead of two, great nuclear powers. And I think that is what the world would have seen. The political calculus is a lot simpler with two powers and history shows the two powers worked it out. It would have been so much harder with three.

If Hitler had not attacked Russia, I think the same could have occurred. I'm not sure he would have sacked Britain, but he might have actually taken Western Europe and consolidated his power, resulting in three superpowers.

cjdelphi: I mean, there would be so much suffering going on, mass exterminating for example, but come 90 years later if that no longer took place and things settled, would life now 90 years later be better? in some ways?

You honestly believe somebody like Hitler would have been able to successfully eliminate all the racial and cultural hatred and bigotry that exists in this world. He was easily one of the worst offenders of such in human history. It's simply naïve to think that hatred and bigotry would be able to defeat hatred and bigotry.

I often wonder but 90 years on after WW2, if hitler and his nazi's had of won, 90 years later would life be better now...

So is it 90 years since WW2? Your maths is nearly as good as your logic.

Mike you're way too literal.

After less than 70 years of relative piece in Europe the following bangs more and more in my head

I came from a world where the people believed that the opposite of war was peace. We found out the hard way that the opposite of war is more often slavery.

CAPTAIN APOLLO, Battlestar Galactica, "Experiment in Terra" (1979)

1 ruler would only speed up the process of slavery.

Germany lost the war when they failed to take England in 1940. Turning East, Germany went from frying pan to fire even if at first it was a lark.

Had Germany stayed after Britain one more year before launching Barbarossa, the Russian Army and Airforce would have been stronger and better equipped. They had the soldiers in 1941, they just needed equipment upgrades and time to get over a purge of leaders. They would only have been far more ready and able in 1942. So Hitler took a shot in 1941 and found out that Russia was much bigger than he thought and much harder to get across. Having a front in Africa and later in Italy really cost Germany dear, not to mention the destruction of Germany by bombers in the same way that German bombers destroyed cities all over Europe. Ask Holland.

They lost when they failed to take Britain. They lost when they failed to take Russia. They lost when they failed to take Africa and Arabia. They lost when the Japanese failed to take India or Australia. You'd have to change a lot for Germany to have won. A magic wand lot.

Germany could have never captured America for one simple reason. The second amendment. He would not just be fighting against our army but the majority of men in America. The majority of people would have died fighting. Even if Germany was able to "take over America" they would be constantly fighting a guerrilla war.

Many people think that guns are the reason that Germany never attacked Switzerland because it was required that virtually all men had to own guns and be able to use them.

Say what you like but when everybody owns a gun your a lot safer when it comes to war and arguably safer in every day life.

arguably safer in every day life.

Argue away - why has Switzerland got a homicide rate one seventh of the USA's?

AWOL:

arguably safer in every day life.

Argue away - why has Switzerland got a homicide rate one seventh of the USA's?

Bad example if you want to prove a gun control point because they actually have a lot of gun ownership in Switzerland. It's something other than guns. Maybe the sex is better, who knows...

Bad example if you want to prove a gun control point because they actually have a lot of gun ownership in Switzerland.

I thought it was rather good example for precisely the same reason. Maybe it is something to do with actually having a well-regulated militia, and not just using a vague, centuries-old concept of one as an argument against gun control.

As long as Switzerland remained neutral the cost of attacking them outweighed any gain. Even in recent times Switzerland kept border crossings mined, it was only a serious tunnel fire that made them rethink that policy.

Hitler hit the buffers with Britain. An invading army trying to across the Channel would have suffered heavy loses at the hands of the Royal Navy. Britain itself was managing to stay supplied thanks to the Atlantic Convoys.

Hitler tried to get out of that deadend by attacking Russia thinking it might be weak particularly with Stalin's purges of his own officers.

My comments had nothing to do with Gun control they were just highlighting the fact that when there is large gun owner ship in a country it is hard to take it over. Look at the middle east. It was hard for us to gain any ground as we were constantly being attached by civilians.

The amount of gun owners has nothing to do with the regulation of weapons. I think Switzerland has a very balanced system that I wish America would follow. Every body has access to cheap weapons and ammo which helps keep the country safe, yet you don't have people walking around with Ar-15's…

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20121228-NEWS-212280384

Lets get back on topic now!

AWOL:

Bad example if you want to prove a gun control point because they actually have a lot of gun ownership in Switzerland.

I thought it was rather good example for precisely the same reason. Maybe it is something to do with actually having a well-regulated militia, and not just using a vague, centuries-old concept of one as an argument against gun control.

Hmm, I see what you are saying now. I think it has a lot to do with homogeneity too, a relatively strongly structured society rather than a free-for-all existing in the bottom segment of society, which is what we have, and which seems to be the 20% of our society that create 80% of the serious gun crime.

I hope that you’re not implying there is some simple, easy way to define that 20%.
Because in fact there is not.