[ASLML] Inside The Third Reich

[Jim McLeod]

Listerz;

I wrote;

> > There are the Allies, plugging away through 1941 to early 1943.  The
> > desert war is a total sideshow in the big scheme of things.  The Allie's
> > deep stratigic thinkers know that Hitler can't win the war versus the
> > Soviets after Stalingrad.  The Allies now are looking at postwar Europe
> > and their enemy is the USSR as the nazis are done.  The Allies need the
> > Russians to grind down the Germans and they, the Allies, also need the
> > Germans to grind down the Russians.  IMHO, that is why the Allies
> > avoided the invasion of France until June '44.  Invading Italy was an
> > appeasement to the Russians and the Allies would have been farther ahead
> > to have not invaded Italy at all.


Sam Belcher wrote:
 
> I disagree. The USA wanted to invade Europe in '43 but the British were
> concerned about launching an invasion before it could be done with over
> whelming force. The Brit's won that point at the conference.... And I
> disagree that the allies "Knew" that Germany couldn't win after Stalingrad.
> Both the Germans AND the other allies were kept in the dark about the true
> strength of Stalin's army. Neither the Germans, nor the allies thought that
> the Soviets would win. In fact, the allies didn't initially send much aid to
> the Russians because they expected them to be over-run.

As stated in just about any western WWII account avaialable.  It is too
bad that we will all be long gone when historians finally get their
hands on and publish all the secret material from WWII.  However, if
Churchill et al were on their game, nothing exists in writting any
more.  What was that book called" A Bodyguard Of Lies"?

I don't believe that there was any love lost between the West and the
Russians Sam.  It was a simple case of sleeping with the devil to attain
one's ultimate goal; defeating a larger devil in nazi Germany.  All that
western propaganda about cooperation between the west and Russia during
the war was just that, propaganda.

> OTOH, the allies could not have won without the Russians


Agreed.

> - at least not without using the atom bomb in Europe.  Think about -that- alternate > history a bit...

Assuming that an August 1945 availability of the A-bomb is a given, and
assuming that there is no war between Germany and the USSR or the
Germans did defeat the USSR prior to 1943/44, it is highly unlikely that
the US could have delivered the A-bomb to England and used it against
the Germans (one reason is the limited number of A-Bombs at the US's
disposal).  With the Germans in command of all continental
Europe/Russia, the English are dead (and, at this time, the German
Atomic program may have actually had a chance of succeeding).  They
would be done in by the U-Boats and the British islands would likely
have been invaded by the Germans.  With a defeated and occupied England,
it is difficult to believe that the US would be willing to expend the
lives and resources neccessary to successfully mount a trans-Atlantic
invasion.  The Americans would (if they were at war with Germany)
negotiate a peace with Hitler and the Americans would be on their own
fighting the Japanese, although the outcome of that war would not have
been any different.  Hitler would not have intervened on behalf of the
Japanese as the Japanese would have fallen into Hitler's "sub-human"
category.

When the dust had settled, it would have been the US and the nazi empire
staring at each other across the Atlantic.  China would now be a huge
variable.  Without Stalin, it is debatable as to whether or not the
Communists would have succeeded in China.  Had the Nationalists
prevailed Chiang would have been the leader of a non-communist China. 
Given the friendly relations Chiang had with the Americans, the US could
have had a foothold in east Asia from which to attack Hitler ... if they
wished.  :)

A China going toward a communist government would have perhaps seen the
US getting involved on the Nationalists side in some form.
 
And what about India?  Civil war following the fall of Great Britain? 
War between the Chinese and Indians?  Hitler siding with India? Who
knows.

Meanwhile, back in Europa,

With a defeated England, those in German occupied European countries
would have no doubt as to which side the toast is buttered and support
for Hitler within those countries would only increase.  Once his racial
policies were met, his next goal would have been creating an
pan-European industrial/military power.  Hitler would have taken over
the Middle East and he would have continued eastward until he reached
India.

Interestingly, Hitler was a Catholic.  However, he apparently maintained
that it was a shame that the predominant religion of Europe was not
Islam.  He admired the fact that, 

<quote> 

"theirs [Islam] was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by
the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith"

Hitler believed that, were it not for the Battle of Tours, Europe would
have been Islamic, but the Arabs, sub-human in Hitler's view, would not
have been able to maintain power.  An Islamized Germanic people would
have defeated the Arabs and this Islamized Germanic people would have
ruled the Islamic world.

How is that for alternate history.  :)

I wrote;

> > IMO, Ol' Eisenhower had his sights on the US presidency by the time of
> > WWII.  His hands off approach to the ground war in France after the
> > D-Day landings may indicate that he:
> >
> > - knew without doubt that the Allies would win.
> 
> I disagree...

Fair enough.
 
> > - knew that the families of dead American soldiers might not be so keen
> > to vote for candidate Ike'.  His broad front strategy hints in that
> > direction as do the antics of his "party all the time" HQ.  They knew
> > they would win so why push the issue.  Keep US losses low to help Ike's
> > image with voters but lets meet the Russians in mid-Germany for the next
> > war so France doesn't get trashed again.  The A-bomb's dropped in Japan
> > were in a way, the final test of that weapon for the benefit of the
> > Russians.
> 
> The fact that Eisenhower wanted to minimize allied (particularly US)
> casualties is evidence that he knew he'd win and that he was already running
> for the White House? I disagree.

He may have had political ambitions during WWII for the White House
Sam.  He was not a candidate in '45.
 
> The A-Bomb was dropped on Japan because the US wanted to minimize casualties
> (especially US casualties). Revisionist history will not change that...

Agreed.  

The intent of the the A-Bomb attacks was also, "Hey Stalin!  Watch
this!  Pretty cool eh, and yes, we do have more."



			=Jim=