• Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    3 months ago

    The only chance he had, while still taking Poland, was to not meaningfully attack France, Netherlands, or Britain. Make it clear he was willing to settle with them. None of those countries were thrilled to be in a war, that would have been the end of it with a new map of Europe.

    The West didn’t care about the Holocaust and felt more threatened by Russia. The war in the Pacific would have still happened of course. And there’s a fair chance the West would have teamed up with Hitler to fight Russia.

    Anything beyond Poland was just a bridge too far.

  • SuspiciousCatThing@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    So, unrelated, but does anyone know what movie that frame is from? Because I swear I remember starting it but I didn’t get to finish it and I don’t remember what it was but I kinda liked it. It was about something from space hitting earth I think?

  • Taleya@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Izzard nailed it.

    And Hitler ended up in a ditch, covered in petrol, on fire, so, that’s fun! I think that’s funny, ‘cause he was a mass-murdering fuckhead. And that was his honeymoon as well!

  • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    44
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    They didn’t have that many nukes at the time. Plus people would be upset if they nuke a white people country

    • Zron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      66
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The manhattan project originally start as a way to defeat Germany, it just wasn’t ready in time.

    • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The plan was the bomb Germany with it first, Japan only got the bombs because we weren’t going to not use them once we had them.

    • Tiltinyall@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Time was a real factor, Germany was on the verge of nuclear technology too. Many lives were spared because Hitler over extended himself. By the time the Allies were at Berlin they were on a campaign of submission.

    • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      80% of nazis died on the eastern front. The US helped sure but it could have been won without them

      • mlfh@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        43
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        Nikita Khrushchev, in his own memoir, stating clearly that the USSR could not have won the war on its own:

        I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin’s views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were “discussing freely” among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany’s pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don’t think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so.

        -Khrushchev, Nikita Sergeevich; Khrushchev, Serge (2004). Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev: Commissar, 1918–1945. Penn State Press. pp. 638–639.

        • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          3 months ago

          Interesting, I did not know about this. I’m hesitant to believe it bc its Kruschev but I will look into it further

        • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 months ago

          I really have no basis for evaluating the matter at hand one way or the other, but I would like to point out that Khrushchev is not a great source, especially when he’s saying “Here’s something Stalin said all the time in private that he never said publicly”.

          Don’t get me wrong, you may very well be right, but I find it less convincing when paired with this evidence than if the claim is simply made with no evidence at all.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        You’re not wrong but a lot of those eastern front deaths came from the final days of the war as the allies marched on Germany’s own land and as well as many battles fought by the Allies across both fronts. The US was instrumental to the pacific front. You’d also have a hard time convincing me France could have been liberated without the US’s D Day Operations.

        • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Which was a very easy way for americans to fight the nazis at the expense of soviet lives. Not that their contribution wasn’t valuable of course. It’s just worth noting the full intentions of the united states.

          • Tiltinyall@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            3 months ago

            Soviets used Soviet lives to win. The same tactic they used against Napoleon. Retreat and destroy all essential supplies. The Soviet winter killed many of thier own too.

            • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              The soviets were invaded by the nazis. The nazis were in the USSR killing them on their land. Would you expect them not to die? To not fight using whatever means they could to protect their families from actual nazis who they know have slaughtered millions? Who else’s lives would they use?

        • s_s@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          We still have monuments donated by Fascist Italy standing in Chicago.

          • Dr. Jenkem@lemmy.blugatch.tube
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Fucking hell, didn’t know about that. Someone should drag that fucking piece of shit into Lake Michigan.

            At least there’s the Haymarket Memorial out in Forest Park.

    • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      Most of the “what if” scenarios that I’ve come across focus on what if the Nazis hadn’t attacked the USSR when they did. If Germany was fighting on one front at a time, the question becomes does Germany take the UK, and if so, does the US directly enter the war at all?