Hitler couldn't just stand still, doing that wouldmake him not Hitler.

Nazi ideology was all about conquering the East and destroying the lesser races.

Now, in this timeline if Hitler had been able to stop and make peace with Stalin in 41 at the height of the Eastern campaign then maybe he could win as I don't believe the Allies would be willing to pay the price in dead which would be in the millions for America and Britain.

The Nazis ruled by consent and not by coercion. They had a policy of 'guns *and* butter,' to keep the public sweet, even though Germany's raw-materials position didn't really allow it and there wasn't much butter in the shops at all. On the outbreak of war in 1939, Germany already had bread rationing, which Britain wouldn't see until the terrible winter of 1947. But Germans just went along with this, as Nazi policy was to preserve an air of normality: there would be only a short war, with minimum inconvenience, and then everything would be fine. The British immediately slaughtered all their zoo animals and went on to a full war footing. But the Germans kept their zoos open till 1945, because the Herrenvolk must not suffer inconvenience.

Only in 1941, under the pressure of RAF bombing, did German war factories go over to 24-hour shift work (which the British had been doing for years). Until then, it was not politically acceptable -- it was not part of the Fuhrer's plan -- to admit that conditions were no longer normal and that the Party had dropped the people right in it.

It wasn't possible for Hitler to make peace with Stalin after launching Operation Barbarossa. The whole policy of Nazism was to destroy the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, this was premised on taking Britain out of the game first and avoiding the 1914-18 nightmare of naval blockade and 'war on two fronts.' And that didn't come off.

This from General Galland's biographer Dan Baker, 'The Views of Adolf Galland', Aeroplane Monthly, July 2000, relying on his conversations with Galland:

Hitler was right, and wrong. The main threat did come from Britain, but not in the form of the naval blockade. Instead it was the bomber offensive. By 1943 RAF Bomber Command was holding down more German manpower, weaponry and materiel than the Red Army. The Germans were forced to devote more resources to the fight against Bomber Command -- a fight they could never win, because the defeat of the night bomber was technically beyond their means -- than to the fight against the Red Army. In the view of the German official historian Horst ter Boog, this is the single most decisive reason for Germany's defeat.

To add to the above, the Nazi ideology also initially prevented women from taking on roles in industry, something the British had no such qualms about. Although the Nazis did make use of foreign slaves in many areas instead.

I think it was clear the British knew the war was going to last a fair length of time and were preparing for that from the outset. Lord Alan Brooke, who commanded a Corp in in France at the outset of the war complained frequently in his diary about the possible failure of the chiefs of staff to concentrate everything they had on the defence of France instead of looking at holding Divisions back for other theatres and bombing German industry on the Rhur instead of German troops during the invasion.

Brooke was principal author of the rather brilliant strategy of 'overstretch' -- piling critical commitments on to the Germans over and above their problems on the Eastern Front. So, while the Americans were gung-ho for a suicidal cross-Channel attack in 1942 (Operation Roundup) or 1943 (Operation Bolero), Brooke talked them into some necessary diversions while they found their feet, starting with the invasion of French North Africa in late 1942 (Operation Torch), which went well, but the Kasserine Pass fiasco showed how disastrous it would have been for the Americans to take on the Germans in North-West Europe at that point. Then Brooke talked them into the invasion of Sicily (Operation Husky), which showed they still weren't ready, as US C-47 pilots panicked at the mere sight of flak and dropped their paratroopers into the sea and drowned them, and Patton engaged in a silly race to Palermo which didn't really help much at all and revealed what a tight rein that particular general needed to be kept on.

Brooke then insisted on the invasion of mainland Italy in September '43, which, combined with the RAF bomber offensive against Italy, knocked Italy clean out of the war on the Axis side and forced the Germans to defend that front by themselves. And they'd never got enough air support for the task because of the Allied bomber offensive against Germany. And that was the 'overstretch', which, along with the extra time bought for US shipyards to construct the necessary volume of landing craft and for US troop build-up in England, made Operation Overlord viable in June '44.

Yes I don't believe Hitler would make peace that early unless it was something huge that the Soviets would never offer, i've read some sources saying he would be willing if they gave him Ukraine but don't know how reliable they are.

I wonder how the war goes if the States force Britain into Sledgehammer in 42.. does the public quickly lose intrest in the War after seeing all those dead quickly?

I've got a dumb question. How was Germany able to control so much of Europe? Was their army just that much bigger than everyone else? Seems like they would be stretched extremely thin trying to control all the countries they were in.

They were and would have collapsed under their own weight sooner or later. There were advanced and organized resistance movements in most of the countries they occupied. I'd go so far as to argue that Germany was in the process of proving how impossible it is to govern without the consent of the governed in a world of miniaturized weapons like SMG's and plastic explosives.

The impact of resistance movements has been, in general, greatly over-stated. Those involved in them were incredibly brave but in most cases their impact was pretty minimal. This is especially true in France where there was a post war need to create a national myth about the level of resistance. As I said though, this shouldn't take away from the bravery of those involved in such movements.

The Nazi’s had collaborators in France, Holland, Austria, etc. who were more than willing to sell out their native countries.

Not really fair to lump Holland (which had Rotterdam flattened) in with Austria (which welcomed the Nazis).

By coincidence I just finished a book that illustrates some of what you stated above. I posted about it in the lounge, a copy of the post is below.

*************************

Just finished this great book: We Die Alone: A WWII Epic Of Escape And Endurance, by David Howarth

(I stole the blurb below from amazon)

We Die Alone recounts one of the most exciting escape stories to emerge from the challenges and miseries of World War II. In March 1943, a team of expatriate Norwegian commandos sailed from northern England for Nazi-occupied arctic Norway to organize and supply the Norwegian resistance. But they were betrayed and the Nazis ambushed them. Only one man survived--Jan Baalsrud. This is the incredible and gripping story of his escape.

_____________________________________

Fantastic read. For a teaser, Jan, using a rather dull knife, amputates nine of his ten toes while hiding in a snow cave. He wisely places the dead and decayed toes out of sight so he doesn't have to see them. And also, more importantly, so the toes are not looking at him and talking. You couldn't make up this fun stuff. A more serious and poignant part of the book is about the people that helped him and the risks they undertook.

Sounds like a good read. Will check it out the next time I'm putting in a book order (I tend to bulk buy)

I really don't even know how anyone could ever quantify the effects of resistance movements. I don't like this perspective because I find them to be critical efforts in the overall initiative to win the war or any war for that matter. Every piece of intelligence, every resistance fighter (male, female, or child) with a gun, grenade, landmine, bomb, assassination effort, or through any other course of action was of ABSOLUTE critical assistance and distraction(to the Germans) towards the war effort. This means that German personal and attention was now pre-occupied and distracted with these efforts, whether they were in France, Belgium, Poland, Africa, or the Soviet Union. It was especially apparent in the Soviet Union where large pockets of undefeated and un-imprisoned civilian and military resistance fighters gave the Germans nightmares with their guerilla tactics. This was a World War and the military was not the only fighting and making significant strides. All efforts made up the whole of the war, just look at events like the Warsaw Uprising in 44. Over 2k Germans were killed, nearly 10k wounded, and thousands captured. I would never dare say that resistance was insignificant because it was exactly the type of relief and assistance that the Allies needed to bring a quicker end to the war.

It's hyperbole and untrue to say that every single person involved in resistance efforts was of absolute critical assistance to the war effort.

I do agree that the partisans in the East certainly played their part, far moreso than those in the West. It was a huge mistake on the part of the Germans to turn what could've been a relatively supportive population in many countries into an enemy. Ultimately though the racial views of Hitler and the need to bascially rape the lands at the expense of the local populations to support the needs of the Wermacht and the home front meant this was inevitable.

The Warsaw uprising was also incredibly brave and could've been effective but for the Russian decision to allow the Germans to crush it, even going so far as stopping Britain from providing air drops of arms to the Poles.

Outwith all this though the impact of resistance movements has generally been over-stated. They didn't tie up huge amounts of troops or have any major effect on them.

It's been a while since I read it but from memory I'm pretty sure Max Hastings book 'The Secret War - Spies, Codes and Guerillas 1939 -1945' covers this and exposes some of the myths that have grown out of the period.

A relatively small resistance does require a relatively massive effort to counter. It's not just the fighting. The Germans had to keep 100k soldiers in France even with the Vichy collaberation.

It didn't require a massive effort. Germany would always have to keep troops in France as an army of occupation whether there was resistance or not. They had a coastline to defend as well as ports, submarine bases, airfields etc. Remember they also kept a significant amount of Troops in Norway right till the very end. French resistance especially was greatly over-stated

First of all--why keep troops in place if not to deter invasion/resistance? What was the purpose of the Gestapo/Heydrich's SD then? How was French resistance greatly over-stated?

Once again, I do not see how you can quantify a resistance movement's efficacy through a historical account. One thing is certain, they were of significant and critical importance to the allied war effort. To say that every extra resistance/guerilla fighting body which provided any type of means of countering the Germans and was of absolute importance is a hyperbole, then maybe you are not seeing the big picture.

Also what nations, besides the Ukraine (for reasons of Soviet resentment), were "relatively" accepting of German occupation? I am curious.

I don't think Husker realizes how much of a response and allotment of resources is required to quell terrorist/guerilla/resistance efforts. During operation Anthropoid, 750 SS soldiers were engaged with only a handful of resistance fighters inside a church for hours after killing Reinhard Heydrich. This was a major event. There are many unrecognized such events throughout the war.

What??? You absolutely quantify a unti's effectivenes through a historical account. If not that way how would you assess it?

I'm assuming English isn't your native language given the above so I'm happy to cut you some slack with regards to definitions but what evidence do you have of the effectivenessof the resistance in WW2 and in which theatres?

And what sources are you citing?

I don't want to state the obvious but Britain was only a few miles away accross the channel so of course Germany had to keep troops in France. I've already pointed out that Germany had many military installations that needed defending there.

The SD? To quote from wiki, "The organization consisted of a few hundred full-time agents and several thousand informants." Hardly a drain on resources.

Translate to English?

The baltic states who were illegaly annexed in 1940 after threats of Russian invasion. It took over 50 years for them to free themselves from the oppressive and murderous Russian regime. They were no friends of Stalin or his oppressive control of their countries.

Classic two plus two response and debate. You lay down a general claim with no evidence that french resistance is over-stated. I present some evidence with counter argument and ask questions . You respond with insult, no evidence, sidestep all my questions, and demand that I cite my sources. This is productive.

If you genuinely wish to prove a point about the resistance then post sources that support your argument rather than minor operations. 750 ss soldiers out of a total 13 million troops is completely insignificant.

How was french resistance greatly over-stated is really the only question you needed to answer?

You have given no evidence whatsoever.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/wh...robert-gildea/

"Thirstily swallowed by a humiliated France, the dominant narrative of the French Resistance was cooked up by General de Gaulle"

"Yet, as Robert Gildea exposes in this comprehensive survey of the French Resistance, the myth that the French freed themselves is largely poppycock"



http://www.historynet.com/french-res...-resistant.htm

"“The French, understandably, reacted [after liberation] to their ordeal by retreating into a myth,” writes Ian Ousby in Occupation: The Ordeal of France, 1940–1944. “A myth of a people united in hostility to the Nazi occupiers, of a nation of résistants.” In truth France was far from a nation of resisters. Anti-Nazi partisans in Yugoslavia, Poland and Greece were far more effective and constituted a substantially higher percentage of the population of each country. As Time described Marcel Ophul’s Resistance-debunking 1969 documentary The Sorrow and the Pity, the film “tries to puncture the bourgeois myth— or protectively askew memory—that allows France generally to act as if hardly any Frenchmen collaborated with the Germans.”

Fully 90 percent of France’s population either supported the collaborationist Vichy regime or were too frightened to have anything to do with the underground. Most civilians evidently no longer wanted to be part of any war, and many French soldiers lacked the will to continue the fight. German soldiers were stunned when some of the French they captured in June 1940 danced jigs and sang folksongs, delighted to be done with warfighting."

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/...th-3160032.php

"One of the most persistent wartime images has selfless French men and women in berets and leather jackets blowing up bridges and ambushing columns of German soldiers on lonely country roads.

But a new book by historian Douglas Porch, "The French Secret Services," contends almost nothing of the sort actually happened. His account has set the French seething - all the more so since many of them are aware that what he says is absolutely true. "

"Albert Speer, who headed German war production, was asked after the war about the effect of the French Resistance. He replied, "What French Resistance?" "

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...-gildea-review

"The French resistance, as Gildea writes, has always been both central to the identity of France and a subject of myths. When France was liberated in the summer of 1944, it needed a myth of grandeur to allow the French to take their place at the table of victors."