How far would Hitler have gone?

The Flemster

The Flemster

Miserable old bastard
Registered Senior Member
Whilst I have a basic and ever-expanding knowledge of WW2, there are some questions I can't seem to find answers to, mainly hypothetical ones. Perhaps some people, more studious than I, can answer me this:

If, when Hitler began expanding and invading his neighbours, the rest of the world did nothing at all to intervene, just how far would he have gone?

Was global domination his ultimate goal? Or would he have stopped at western Europe and some of Russia?
Were there plans to continue after invading Russia and England?
How far in each direction was he prepared to spread the German empire?

Any answers will be gratfully recieved and read with interest!
 
Hitler was largely misunderstood.

His greatest vish voz to Pronounce zee letter 'W' correctly.

The frustration began ven he asked nicely for Poland to hand over Varsaw.

Confusion ensued and zee rest ist history.
 
His ambition was to make the world Catholic, for he was a Catholic and was being funded by the Catholic Church.
 
How far would Hitler have gone?

All the way.

He would have succeeded if he would have embraced the Jewish People - to control the world.
 
Hitler would have taken over all of eaurope and part of Asia. Him and the Japanese would have struct some sort of deal I am sure about that. How ever the fact still remains the guy was an Idiot for doing what he did. And I for one amy glad that he did not get very far in his plans.
 
a 1000 year Reich.

Mostly he was talking about Europe. Didn't really want Russia, just wanted the good stuff close to Europe and the Caucasus. Middle east is a Gimme after that. Or the Rommel Fantasy scenario...all the way to India.

He didn't seriously think of invasion of the western hemisphere. Perhaps, only if he managed a coup in some SAmerican countries along with Argentia. Eventually, if Germany or U.S developed the bomb, the war probably would have went "hot" with him still in the picture.

Certainly a different world.
 
He didn't want world domination. That is why he ignored the American Nazi movement that looked to him for support.

And he wasn't Catholic, he was an atheist. He used religion as a propaganda tool.
 
Grim_Reaper said:
Hitler would have taken over all of eaurope and part of Asia. Him and the Japanese would have struct some sort of deal I am sure about that. How ever the fact still remains the guy was an Idiot for doing what he did. And I for one amy glad that he did not get very far in his plans.
Click to expand...

+1

I dont know much of the history of WWII but I do know some of the horrific things Hitler did to the Jews and for what ever reasons it was wrong.
 
The Flemster said:
Whilst I have a basic and ever-expanding knowledge of WW2, there are some questions I can't seem to find answers to, mainly hypothetical ones. Perhaps some people, more studious than I, can answer me this:

If, when Hitler began expanding and invading his neighbours, the rest of the world did nothing at all to intervene, just how far would he have gone?

Was global domination his ultimate goal? Or would he have stopped at western Europe and some of Russia?
Were there plans to continue after invading Russia and England?
How far in each direction was he prepared to spread the German empire?

Any answers will be gratfully recieved and read with interest!
Click to expand...

If you seek to understand Hitler read his autobiography.
 
Candy, I don't particularly wish to understand Hitler, I am just curious as to how far the Germans would have advanced if they were left to their own devices. It's purely a 'what if...?' question I guess.
 
The Flemster said:
Candy, I don't particularly wish to understand Hitler, I am just curious as to how far the Germans would have advanced if they were left to their own devices. It's purely a 'what if...?' question I guess.
Click to expand...

They are being left to their own advances now so we will see in the future as to where they are going.
 
Norsefire said:
Well, the 'price' was payed because of Hitler not doing well during the war at the end. That was avoidable, however; too bad he didn't have better generals.
Click to expand...

No, the price was paid because Hitler was a sociopath and a warmongering dictator.
 
shichimenshyo said:
No, the price was paid because Hitler was warmongering
Click to expand...

He was too aggressive, I agree. He should've focused on Germany and less on foreign affairs, like Mussolini. That's why Germany paid the price: because he expanded too rapidly.
 
Hitler would have died and a power squable would have overtaken the Nazi empire. It is no secret that Hitler suffered from various medical conditions which would have eventually resulted in his death and he would have gone mad before he died. Who would have taken his place is another matter for speculation.

But whoever would eventually become Hitler's successor, one can assume they would be much more sensitive to international pressures. And it remains a matter of speculation that any eventual sucessor would have the wisdom and foresight necessary to sustain the Nazi empire.

One of the things that strikes me about Hitler in his last years was how illogical he was in running the war. Instead of going after strategic targets, he went after high PR profile targets. Instead of attacking English airbases, he attacked British civilians. Instead of securing oil and manufacturing resources that were protected from Allied attacked he attacked Stalingrad. Hitler was not making a lot of good military decisions in his later years.

Eventually, I think the Nazi empire would have collapsed under its own weight.
 
joepistole said:
Hitler would have died and a power squable would have overtaken the Nazi empire. It is no secret that Hitler suffered from various medical conditions which would have eventually resulted in his death and he would have gone mad before he died. Who would have taken his place is another matter for speculation.
Click to expand...
Himmler would have been a prime candidate.


Eventually, I think the Nazi empire would have collapsed under its own weight.
Click to expand...

Like any empire or indeed any state will "eventually" collapse.

Though that does not mean they would not have made great strides in their time, like the Roman civilization that lasted for nearly a thousand years 509 BC - 476 AD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top