Was Hitler after total world domination, or did he just want to control Europe?

[Deleted]

By February 1941, the UK was beginning to reverse the Atlantic sub war. Germany U-boat success "the happy time" ended in 41. At a tactical level, new short-wave radar sets that could detect surfaced U-boats and were suitable for both small ships and aircraft began to arrive during 1941.

Germany would have had to take a Med strategy to stop the flow of supplies to the UK by taking the canal. Because the U-boat war was about to turn against them. And a Med strategy means no USSR attack would have been made in 1941.

Which in reality is the wrong think to think about, because the problem was when the Luftwaffe was told to 'blitz' instead of continuing with their prior goal of degrading the RAF, The RAF were on the brink of collapse when that happened. Absent effective air cover, a naval blockade could have been enacted, and its then very likely that the UK would have either been forced to surrender (well cease the war at least) or been effectively rendered moot as a fighting European entity.

- - - Updated - - -

It woud've never lasted.

A large part of the reason the USSR was brought down was the fact that the 'west' existed next door - I think if Hitler had achieved his hegemony over Europe, there would still be Nazis around today, just as i believe that the USSR would still be around if Soviet tanks had reached the channel.

[Holofernes]

In WWII era, having nukes and being able to drop them are 2 completely different things.

If Hitler had been successful and control all of Europe, that means the US wouldn't have had the British Isles as a place to refuel planes, set up carriers etc. The nukes on Japan only happened after the Japanese airforce had already been (mostly) defeated. So, with subs out in the Atlantic to sink carriers, I don't think the US would've been able to nuke Germany like they did Japan. At least not without the help of any resistance forces in Europe.

Scary thoughts here though...

whereas german submarines were seeing the lights of new york harbor

[Release]

Which in reality is the wrong think to think about, because the problem was when the Luftwaffe was told to 'blitz' instead of continuing with their prior goal of degrading the RAF, The RAF were on the brink of collapse when that happened. Absent effective air cover, a naval blockade could have been enacted, and its then very likely that the UK would have either been forced to surrender (well cease the war at least) or been effectively rendered moot as a fighting European entity.

This is entirely incorrect. Even the German high command at the time recognized had Germany gained air superiority by eliminating the RAF a ground invasion still would have been impossible. This is mainly due to Britain having the formidable Royal Navy which far superseded Germany's Navy but also the Germans having nothing efficient to transport troops or armour across the channel and the fact that aerial bombing was very ineffective against the Navy at this time (as evidenced by the Germans bombing ships in Dunkirk and sinking basically nothing).

Hitler would not have been able to invade the UK in 1941. He wanted a peace with England so he could have a free hand attacking Russia. When he had dealt with all the threats around him and built his own Navy and proper troop transportation he probably would have revisited it in 5-10 years time if England did not agree to similar terms to the other European nations.

[Airlick]

You people with your idea of delaying the attack on USSR...

I mean, on one hand Stalin was absolutely oblivious of the very obvious intention of Hitler to attack USSR. I remember reading memoirs of his staff at the time, and it appeared like Stalin genuinely believed he was friends with Hitler, or at least that Hitler would never attack until he dealt with the West. The huge successes of Germans on the eastern front at the beginning of the war against Russia stemmed from 2 things - one is that Russian army was deployed in an offensive manner. This is why, when Germans attacked, they fell apart instantly. They just weren't prepared for defensive actions. Stalin was openly dismissing the intelligence reports that made it absolutely clear that nazis are preparing for an attack. Even after it happened, he still dismissed the idea, claiming that the reports must be wrong and that Hitler wouldn't attack him. This is what paralyzed the Russians early in the war.

But that's assuming Stalin actually considered Hitler a friend. It might be that, and it wouldn't be surprising coming from him, that he just waited for a right moment to launch his own offensive. As I said, Russian army was deployed in offensive formations. So he might have just been refusing to conform with the truth that Hitler acted first. In any case, if Hitler delayed his attack, you can't say that "oh, he'd just move all of his army east and steamroll USSR". If he delayed, he might have ended up getting attacked himself OR facing the Red Army prepared for defense. If that happened, it is extremely likely that Germans wouldn't have gone nearly as deep into Russia as they did. Let's remember here that pretty much half of Russian casualties (as far as soldiers, and not civilians, are concerned) came in 1941 alone.

Also, why WOULDN'T Japan attack Pearl Harbor? Look from the perspective of Japan during WW2, not Hitler or from the perspective of a 2017 airmchair historian.

[Deleted]

This is entirely incorrect. Even the German high command at the time recognized had Germany gained air superiority by eliminating the RAF a ground invasion still would have been impossible.

I didn't say that.
I said that the UK would have been forced out of the war - the UK could not even feed themselves absent supply ships, fighting a war would have been impossible.

This is mainly due to Britain having the formidable Royal Navy which far superseded Germany's Navy

And absent Air cover it would have been sunk, it was one of the Core lessons of the pacific theater, Air power beats sea power.

[Release]

I didn't say that.
I said that the UK would have been forced out of the war - the UK could not even feed themselves absent supply ships, fighting a war would have been impossible.
And absent Air cover it would have been sunk, it was one of the Core lessons of the pacific theater, Air power beats sea power.

The UK Navy had little air cover over Dunkirk, German bombers were not effective at bombing ships in 1941. There is no way the Germans could have cut off our supply lines when our Navy was so superior to Germany's. The only way Germany had of catching up quickly was by gaining possession of the French fleet but a lot of the French volunteered to join our Navy and we scuttled the rest.

[Deleted]

The UK Navy had little air cover over Dunkirk, German bombers were not effective at bombing ships in 1941. There is no way the Germans could have cut off our supply lines when our Navy was so superior to Germany's. The only way Germany had of catching up quickly was by gaining possession of the French fleet but a lot of the French volunteered to join our Navy and we scuttled the rest.

Supply ships are not battle ships - Had hitler persisted with the initial strategy of degrading the RAF and blockading, instead of moving on to the Blitz, i'm certain the UK would have been forced to concede.

[Jonnusthegreat]

The type of "world peace" that you speak of would mean the complete genocide of the Jews. Thats not peace to me, thats barbarism.

If there are no Jews because they have all been murdered and no longer exist, then it is peace.

[Deleted]

I've thought about this quite a bit over the years.

If Hitler actually "won" how long would it have lasted? And how long before the rest of the world beat him back?

I don't think such an evil dictator like him would have lasted long even if he seized control of all of Europe.

I'd say maaaaybe 5-10 years max before he was taken down.

That's implying he was evil to begin with. Most people didn't think so. Besides, the whole death camp thing started when Germany was losing the war. If they had won the war they probably wouldn't have needed to exterminate them all, they could've just send them out of Europe.

But keeping believing the post-WWII propaganda claiming Hitler was satan himself and Germany the worst evil to ever exist on this planet.

[Release]

Supply ships are not battle ships - Had hitler persisted with the initial strategy of degrading the RAF and blockading, instead of moving on to the Blitz, i'm certain the UK would have been forced to concede.

We use our vastly superior navy to guard our supply ships..you are wrong. Hitler wanted peace because England was a thorn in his side that he could do nothing about in the short term. Had he conquered Russia, he would have built a Navy or a vast air force whatever and then things might have been different. The point being though had Germany won the battle of Britain the trajectory of the overall conflict would have remained the same. England would have been weakened and I suppose made the possibility of peace more likely but by this time Churchill had pretty much won over the government that we would fight until the end.

[grexly75]

If you watch Apocalypse: The Second World War documentary and its follow up docos on Hitler it gives you an interesting insight into it all..

- - - Updated - - -

We use our vastly superior navy to guard our supply ships..you are wrong. Hitler wanted peace because England was a thorn in his side that he could do nothing about in the short term. Had he conquered Russia, he would have built a Navy or a vast air force whatever and then things might have been different. The point being though had Germany won the battle of Britain the trajectory of the overall conflict would have remained the same. England would have been weakened and I suppose made the possibility of peace more likely but by this time Churchill had pretty much won over the government that we would fight until the end.

Not when Hitler had the Atlantic covered with his submarines, heck there is even film of German submariners off the United States eastern seaboard taking film of New York City..

Yes he lost the Battle of Britain but with his Wolfpacks patrolling the shipping lanes he could have starved the UK into submission..

[Zelk]

Germany was already failing by 1936 so the whole idea is pretty stupid

[Slant]

Well to be fair the official communicated policy was for 'peaceful ethnic cleansing' (i.e deportations) - He was in favor of Israel and so on (At least officially mind you).

Yes, but at some point stories leak. You have soldiers working at those camps, contractors, suppliers, postmen... I don't remember having ever read that those concentration camps were a state secret. Something must have gotten out. And I'm fairly certain those train drivers noticed that they were shipping a lot of people to those camps but never away from them.

So yes, official policy is a good argument. But like I said, the public must have been aware that something fishy was going on. Even if they didn't want to believe the extent of the madness.

[Deleted]

Again, from your perspective. From their's, it was elimating the devil's who wronged them.

How did Czechoslovakia wrong them? Luxembourg? Belgium? The Netherlands? How about Greece? Yugoslavia? Norway? Denmark? etc etc.
Greed and superiority complex, plain and simple. Maybe it started as "wanting to do what's right" but it sure as hell didn't continue long like that.

[Video Games]

How did Czechoslovakia wrong them? Luxembourg? Belgium? The Netherlands? How about Greece? Yugoslavia? Norway? Denmark? etc etc.
Greed and superiority complex, plain and simple. Maybe it started as "wanting to do what's right" but it sure as hell didn't continue long like that.

You're just not getting it. All I'm doing is telling you their thought process to justify it.

[Deleted]

He wanted world domination. He attacked Africa not only Europe. And once he got done with Europe, he would have turned on Japan.

It was a pointless endeavour, really, you can't hold shit if the local population doesn't support you. You REALLY can't stretch that thin and hold everything against remnant of former armies and resistance fighters at every turn.

This is why a world war is just not feasible. To attempt to conquer something large like USA, Russia or China is really stupid without local support. Sure, you can win, but the next day everything is lost to armed militias. You can't hold a land this large against a hostile population.

[Deleted]

I've thought about this quite a bit over the years.

If Hitler actually "won" how long would it have lasted? And how long before the rest of the world beat him back?

I don't think such an evil dictator like him would have lasted long even if he seized control of all of Europe.

I'd say maaaaybe 5-10 years max before he was taken down.

He was anti-Jew. As long as Jews prevailed, he would be in power, because there are soooooooooooooooooooooooo many anti-Jews.

[padie]

That's implying he was evil to begin with. Most people didn't think so. Besides, the whole death camp thing started when Germany was losing the war. If they had won the war they probably wouldn't have needed to exterminate them all, they could've just send them out of Europe.

But keeping believing the post-WWII propaganda claiming Hitler was satan himself and Germany the worst evil to ever exist on this planet.

You should search up your claims. The Holocaust started when Hilter was appointed chancellor in 1933. First bump was Kristallnacht in 38.
Next major thing was invasion of Russia and the meeting with the Mufti.(1941)

[Ghostpanther]

This is entirely incorrect. Even the German high command at the time recognized had Germany gained air superiority by eliminating the RAF a ground invasion still would have been impossible. This is mainly due to Britain having the formidable Royal Navy which far superseded Germany's Navy but also the Germans having nothing efficient to transport troops or armour across the channel and the fact that aerial bombing was very ineffective against the Navy at this time (as evidenced by the Germans bombing ships in Dunkirk and sinking basically nothing).

Hitler would not have been able to invade the UK in 1941. He wanted a peace with England so he could have a free hand attacking Russia. When he had dealt with all the threats around him and built his own Navy and proper troop transportation he probably would have revisited it in 5-10 years time if England did not agree to similar terms to the other European nations.

Very good points and I agree. His one big mistake was invading Russia while he was still at war with England.

- - - Updated - - -

You people with your idea of delaying the attack on USSR...

I mean, on one hand Stalin was absolutely oblivious of the very obvious intention of Hitler to attack USSR. I remember reading memoirs of his staff at the time, and it appeared like Stalin genuinely believed he was friends with Hitler, or at least that Hitler would never attack until he dealt with the West. The huge successes of Germans on the eastern front at the beginning of the war against Russia stemmed from 2 things - one is that Russian army was deployed in an offensive manner. This is why, when Germans attacked, they fell apart instantly. They just weren't prepared for defensive actions. Stalin was openly dismissing the intelligence reports that made it absolutely clear that nazis are preparing for an attack. Even after it happened, he still dismissed the idea, claiming that the reports must be wrong and that Hitler wouldn't attack him. This is what paralyzed the Russians early in the war.

But that's assuming Stalin actually considered Hitler a friend. It might be that, and it wouldn't be surprising coming from him, that he just waited for a right moment to launch his own offensive. As I said, Russian army was deployed in offensive formations. So he might have just been refusing to conform with the truth that Hitler acted first. In any case, if Hitler delayed his attack, you can't say that "oh, he'd just move all of his army east and steamroll USSR". If he delayed, he might have ended up getting attacked himself OR facing the Red Army prepared for defense. If that happened, it is extremely likely that Germans wouldn't have gone nearly as deep into Russia as they did. Let's remember here that pretty much half of Russian casualties (as far as soldiers, and not civilians, are concerned) came in 1941 alone.

Also, why WOULDN'T Japan attack Pearl Harbor? Look from the perspective of Japan during WW2, not Hitler or from the perspective of a 2017 airmchair historian.

Which we all are here. The most brilliant admiral Japan had was against attacking the US. And advised them not to, as he feared they would only wake up a sleeping Tiger. He had been to the US and had seen with his own eyes the huge potential of the US manufacturing as a war machine.

[Mihalik]

At that time ruling Europe essentially meant ruling the world.

The Reich on the other hand wouldn't really have lasted long no matter what. Contrary to popular belief the Nazis themselves were very poor examples of German "efficiency".

The political system created to govern Nazi Germany was a jumbled mess of a redundant and competing agencies, branches/departments of government, scurrying for favor and the arbitrary graces of the "Fuhrer" who essentially held the whole thing together via his cult of personality.

The Reich would have either had to significantly reform itself (something it was ideologically incapable of) or would have eventually been replaced by another form of government. The problem is that had the Nazis actually won the war, that would have forever influenced Western cultural values and perceptions of right and wrong. It would have justified institutional racism and colonialism for a long period to come.

"The Man in the High Castle" is one possible scenario, tho somewhat unlikely one.

What the Nazis themselves had planned was somewhat different. They wanted to create a German ruled and lead European alliance of allied nations made up of nations with acceptable racial backgrounds. They envisioned a German aligned, but independent France, that would have also preserved its colonial possessions, a German aligned but independent UK that would have also retained its colonial possessions and an Italy that would have controlled much of the Mediterranean basin. All this would have been part of a common economic bloc dominated by Germany.

On the other hand Slavs were all fucked and were intended to be either Germanized if possible (right ethnic make-up, like Czechs and some Poles/Ukrainians) or used as slave labor eventually leading to their "extinction" over several generations. Poland, Ukraine, Russia would have been annexed into Germany. I am unsure whether they actually planned expanding beyond the Urals and the Caucuses or that was something they were planning to deal with somewhere down the road.

They had no territorial ambitions in North America or South America and they hoped for normalized relations with it after the war.

There was another German victory scenario movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherland_(1994_film) back in the 90's which actually imagined a Cold War between a Nazi dominated Europe and the US.