Could Hitler have attacked Asia?

You use whatever is available.
As well as German troops in France, garrisons were also made up of Vichy French. The Balkans were garrisoned with Balkan troops as well as Germans. Italians, Greeks. Any conquered nation - particularly in Europe at the time, where there were plenty of Nazi sympathisers and plenty more willing to go along as long as it meant steady pay and a hot meal a day - will supply troops for any cause, even a conquered nation. I'm fairly certain that even the russians would have had enough peasants, disenfranchised poor, and nazi sympathisers to serve as garrison troops had the Germans won. The USSR was a gaggle of smaller nations absorbed into one large one - and several of those smaller nations had no love for many others.

For example. There were Korean troops captured at Normandy, fighting for the Germans. They were forced to fight for the Japanese army after being captured. They were captured by the Russians later and forced to fight for them. After being captured by the Germans, they were stationed at Normandy.
Presumably, when captured by the Americans, the Americans found no use for them at the time - unless the war in France had gone badly later on, at which point I'm sure they would have.

Iraq is also garrisoned by Iraqis who sympathise with the Americans.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

sympathise?
or maybe they wanted something more than what could be offered under saddams brutal heel

don't forget saddam was a top of the line class "a" dufus
a truely hated and despised man
you won't find many that will sympathise with him besides those he grants power to.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The longer the occupation lasted the more the situation would have become like Yugoslavia where the Germans could not safely exist outside the garrisoned towns and had to travel in convoys from one town to the next town.

This sounds alot like the current climate in Iraq.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

and why is that?
it is because america is trying to establish a government controlled by the people

the ones that are responsible for the killings are the ones that stand to lose bigtime if such a government is established

 

The point is that even with the best of intentions and a more advanced technology the USA is having a difficult time controling Iraq so why would we assume that the Nazis would have been able to control the USSR.

 

point taken and aknowledged
one of the last things hitler wanted was a two front war

russia is the country that laid to rest the perception of the invincible nazis

 

Hitler had allies. Japan in the Far East, namely.

Once the Turks saw a German victory over Europe, they probably would have allied themselves with the Krauts, again. That's both the Far and Near East.

But that's completely ignoring America, which by the end of the war, was producing more arms than everyone else combined.

And like Clockwood said, the only way Hitler could have marched East was if he sat on Europe after it was his.

 

Well it depends, if Hitler did beat russia and his head swelled like Alexander the greats did and ent his army rampaging through asia, he would of been stuffed. If he'd patiently held europe, gathered soldiers resources and supply routes etc, when 1990 came he might of been able to take asia

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No chance. Even the tech-savvy euro armies of the 90's couldn't have mounted a long-distance fight; no way Hitler's of the same period could have done likewise.

Jaybee

 

Those "best intentions" are a large part of why the US is having so many problems. Do you really think the Germans would have listened to bleeding heart liberals at home telling them not to enter mosques or hurt civilians?

You are also forgetting that the cultural differences between the USA and Iraq are far greater than those of Germany and the USSR at the time. To the Iraqis, the US is a truly alien invader - to the Russians, the Germans would have been an evil one, but not one alien in that sense. In trime, the Russians would probably have settled down to a greater extent than the Iraqis ever will, when they discovered that the Germans were not too much different from their own leaders and life went on very much as before. To the peasants, there would not have been too much difference between Stalin and Hitler, once the initial annoyance at having been invaded had worn off and national pride dulled over a couple of years of occupation. Actually, once the people of russia discovered that under German rule the trains ran on time and they had more food than before, they might have begun to enjoy the deposing of their former leaders.

The western alliance is hampered by its own people's ideology, not by its inability to complete the task at hand.

 

so so true

 

or the humility.

 

going by what nicklwj said.

If you over extend your forces, which hitler had done, you no longer fight in a Manouverist (spelling?) way. You force your troops into attrition mainly because of the lack of support elements. When the nazi's drove through Arlon forrest and ultimately encircled Allied troops which led to the fall of dunkirk. That was the perfect example of Manouvre warfare. Combined arms, Dislocation, Surprise, Deception, Quicker Tempo etc etc

P.S. America and Russia weren't the only ones instrumental in the downfall of Hitler, don't forget the Poms in the Battle of Britain (and other nations), and the Aussies in Africa.

 

Harlequin:

The Nazi view of all Slav "races" as untermensch requiring extermination for lebensraum might have stopped life going on very much as before. One reason the Germans had a hard time is that they started executing ordinary villagers - causing survivors to become partisan guerillas....

Leopold:

And Hitler was the guy that insisted the invasion of Russia go ahead before England was defeated.

 

There is no way Hitler could have taken over the world, he should have instead been a CEO or big business owner, that way he would have only needed to take over the world economically rather than totally. Hey, economic take over is easier, just look at Iraq.

 

England was not fighting as a separate entity in WWII.

Yanks, please get this through your skulls.

The state occupying that small island above France is called THE UNITED KINGDOM.

 

Pink you mean?

Yes, you're right, but that is a concept that would have ruined the required simplicity of the above statement, which I am afraid was the only way I could make things easy enough to remember for certain "United States Citizens".

 

Yan·kee Pronunciation (yngk)
n.
1. A native or inhabitant of New England.

it pisses me off too. living in europe, everyone calls me a yankee. im from michigan.

it would be like calling an englishman "irish", or all germans "bavarians".

it shows ignorance.

 

Well then, you know how it feels for a Scot like me to hear the UK referred to as England.