re: What would’ve happened if Britain had surrendered in WWII?

quote:

---

However, Hitler viewed Bolshevism as the enemy of National Socialism and always wanted the ideology destroyed, the two would have never “joined sides”.

Never? 

Wrong. Your statement is factually incorrect. 

I would agree with it being “highly unlikely” that the USSR & Nazi Germany were to have ever joined sides but no one today can categorically exclude that it would have ever happened

---

well done.

quote:

---

If I recall, didn’t the Nazis recruit some Muslim fighters,

---

Some Muslim groups, like those in Palestine, had very close relations. Generally the Arab world had an anti-colonialist mindset, and Germany, as an imperial upstart, was regarded as a friend by virtue of their shared enemies. Italy set up a puppet state in Albania, and you saw resistance there. Muslims in the Balkans condemned the persecution of Serbs, and joined Tito's partisans. At the same time, Germany created a SS division in Bosnia after internal security there decreased. It was in that division that the only Muslim fighter for the Germans earned an Iron Cross.

Also true...not like Muslims are some monolithic entity.

A deeper question...

Without nearly as many genocidal elements, do you think a German dominated Europe could have been a boon to Europe? Or are the genocidal elements does the Nazi party rise?

Perhaps instead of extermination, expulsion?

Alternative history discussions are fascinating

quote:

---

Taking the British and French colonial posessions, the Germans could have used them for Lebensraum

---

The historical notion of lebensraum ended in the Caucasus. More than likely they would have competed with the traditional powers in the region, Iran and Turkey, as all invaders have done for the last millennia. In response to the pan-Germanic ideas of the Nazis, pan-Iranic and pan-Turkic ideologies formed, ideologies which made historical claims of land as large as the German claim of land in Eastern Europe. Had those pan-ethnic ideas won out (rather than the cosmopolitan polities in the West), those claims would have been taken more seriously, as both the Turks and Persians had grievances against imperial powers, who had, in different ways, ended the imperial designs of each.

quote:

---

For all their faults, Germans are notorious keen and efficient

---

Read The Wages of Destruction. Any notion that Nazis were efficient is dispelled. The Nazis created an economic engine that wasn't going to sustain itself without war, and they had no ability to access resources vital for their war economy.

crazy4lsu I appreciate your knowledge on the subject.

quote:

---

Alternative history discussions are fascinating

---

Very much so.

quote:

---

do you think a German dominated Europe could have been a boon to Europe?

---

Germans dominated Europe for a long time. What the Nazis represented was a pan-Germanic ideal, which was dangerous for the social order that developed in Central Europe. Germans played major roles in the Austrian and Russian empires, and were nearly ubiquitous throughout Eastern Europe.

It also depends on what you mean by boon. German universities were the best in the world in the 20's, but there were numerous problems. Firstly the German right had no faith in the Weimar Republic, or anyone other than a traditional conservative, to run Germany. The origins of German rearmament under the Nazis was actually during the Weimar, when Kurt von Schleicher made a series of agreements, using shell companies, to produce weapons in the USSR. There were also numerous other scandals, from assassination of journalists to pitched battles between communists and other groups (including the SA). The key turning point was the belief that the Social Democrats couldn't rule Germany, after they won elections in 1928, but not enough to form a government. The deep cynicism of the German right drove them into Hitler's arms.

The problem Germany faced were that Britain and France didn't want it to become a colonial power, nor a continental power. That tension would have existed regardless of who was in charge. The geopolitics would exist regardless, and those geopolitics are ultimately what defines both internal and external policies.

quote:

---

What it took to sustain an ancient army and a modern one is a meaningful distinction.

---

I’ll concede this point. I guess the wonder here is, with a different path, do we see a better Europe current day.?

quote:

---

I got one for you. What if British Private, Henry Tandey, who during a battle had Adolf Hitler “dead to rights” would of pulled the trigger instead of lowering his weapon and letting Hitler walk off the battlefield unharmed.

---

In WW1?

Depends on how much you subscribe to the “Great Man Theory”

I call Bolshevik!,,

quote:

---

If that cuck Neville Chamberlain had signed an armistice with Hitler, would the world be a different place today?

---

Two things:

1) You do realize that an armistice is not a surrender, correct? Wars don't have to end in complete victory or abject capitulation, though that trend is part of why 20th century wars have been so uniquely savage.

2) Neville Chamberlain tied Britain to war with Germany over an extremely contentious and complex German/Polish land dispute and ethnic rivalry that went back nearly 1000 years. He did this in March of 1939 and it was an extremely aggressive and risky foreign policy move. He also honored it in September of that same year and thus voluntarily entered Britain into a major European war over a German/Polish matter that affected the British Empire very little outside of the relative power balance in Europe. His actions were far from cuckish but people tend to repeat the trope they hear on the History Channel rather than thinking for themselves.